Protest or Insurrection?
I’m not saying that there was massive election fraud in 2020, but I will present this logical and reasonable If-Then argument:
IF it’s found that Democrats conspired to commit massive election fraud …
And IF there is ample and credible evidence that efforts were made to execute said plan …
Then – opposition parties should have protested to congress, to at least defer the confirmation of a winner until reports of large-scale irregularities could be investigated.
4 undeniable facts:
- On election night, even up until late night, Trump was the projected winner. Then, in the middle of the night, counts kept coming in and the democrat was declared the winner.
- The following day, “mainstream” network news began repeating that there was “no evidence of voter fraud”. This was always the lead story, and was repeated many times a day, for many days. This is most significant because it defies “plausible deniability” as there has probably never been a national election with “no evidence of voter fraud”, and every major network news editor knows that. They would also know that “evidence” is a much lower standard than “proof”.
- Hundreds of witnesses signed sworn affidavits that they had witnessed voter fraud. The total number eventually reached more that 1,000. An affidavit is considered evidence in court; such an affidavit might, for example, be entered as “Exhibit 999”. That would be evidence, and every major network news editor knows that.
- At least two people have pled guilty to involvement in massive voter fraud in AZ, bringing stacks of ballots to voting drop-boxes, implicated by geo-tracking evidence as detailed in the film 2,000 Mules. While some may dismiss the film as right-wing propaganda, the guilty pleas are a matter of court record, an undeniable fact. (Though “fact-checking” websites offer denials).
If there were massive election fraud, many methods could have been used. This is significant because it could be claimed for any one discovered method, that it wouldn’t have been enough votes to change the election result. But together they might have – the “death by 1,000 paper-cuts” principle.
Some Methods Alleged:
- 2,000 mules (a right-wing film expose) geo-tracking cell phone data showed that more than 2,000 people each made multiple trips from left-wing NGOs to ballot drop-boxes
- Harvesting / Sorting – ballot harvesting is legal in some places (if the harvesters follow the rules) but this breaks the “chain of custody” and makes it very easy for people to sort through ballots and remove ones they don’t like. A Project Veritas video shows a worker for Rep. Omar boasting of having a stack of ballots all for one candidate. The worker has since recanted and said he was paid to say it, but who paid and who lied? Looking at their respective records, I trust Project Veritas a good bit more than Rep. Omar. Everything can be “debunked”.
- Truckloads of ballots brought to polling places after they closed – a governor in one state said that was OK; the governor did not have the authority to make that decision
- Hidden ballots in polling places in boxes or bins – it matters not whether someone thought they looked like suitcases
- Harvesting from convalescent or retirement homes – many “voters” being senile or otherwise otherly-abled … some relatives of residents of places involved have complained that their elderly relative would have been incapable of voting
- Non-residents registering at the polls, without ID – many were illegal aliens
- The parent company of Gmail (alleged to be Google) blocking emails from conservative groups – 22 million instances have been alleged
- Zuckerberg (founder of face-book) funding voting drives in left-leaning areas, though not necessarily illegal, it is a huge amount of money (and therefore influence) – $350 million – mostly democrat cities. Congress has held hearings questioning the ethics of “outside” (of the state) private donations; many republican governors have taken action to curtail such activities.
- Vote-counting computers logging the same votes multiple times – one arrest so far
- Computer voting machines have been alleged to adjust votes in a number of ways, in 2020 and in the 2016 and 2012 elections in the US, and in some developing nations. One thing that makes this believable is that bad things seem to happen to people who make such allegations against the decent and law-abiding companies that build, program, and manage these fine machines.
And, to me, this is the main evidence of voter fraud: ABC, CBS, and NBC (seems to be one source) claiming “No evidence of voter fraud” – every day for weeks. Really? Has there ever been a past election with “No evidence of voter fraud”? The running joke in Chicago has been (for many decades): “Vote early and vote often”. One argument made by leftists eager to promulgate the “No evidence” mantra is: “if there had been any cheating, someone would have seen it” – they did – there were quickly more than 1,000 witness who signed affidavits describing voter fraud they witnessed. That’s 1,000 pieces of evidence right there. Someone might say “but that’s not proof of fraud” – that’s right – an affidavit is evidence, not proof. One must understand the difference between evidence and proof. The project Veritas video is evidence, a video of a truck delivering ballots in the middle of the night is evidence … there was evidence. And, there are already many criminally charged, and some convicted and sentenced (the two in AZ were sentenced to two years probation).
And: the claim that ballots were verified by having volunteers check to ensure that names and addresses were those of real people, does not verify that such persons cast that particular vote. I suspect that (in areas with suspect results) many of these people, if asked, would say “hey! Where did that come from? I didn’t even vote!” or “I voted for the other guy!”. The only way to ensure a secret vote, only by citizens, and only one vote per person, is to have voters come to a polling place with bipartisan observers, and to check IDs. And, the notion that requiring an ID is racist is absurd and is perpetuated by the left: will leftists admit that their restrictive (infringing) gun laws are racist? You certainly have to show an ID to buy a gun. Is that a tactic of the left to prevent Black Americans from getting guns? (Actually, many state and local gun laws were created by Jim Crow democrats).
Back to the If – Then:
If there was good evidence that there was large-scale voter fraud (like 1,000+ witnesses, 2,000+ geo-tracked ballot-harvesters, truckloads of ballots, etc.) …
Then … the election was the insurrection, not the Jan-six protest.
And: if there were evidence of voter fraud of such a scale so as to change the result of the election, Then one could argue that opposition parties should (peacefully and patriotically) install the legally elected president. And, any Democrat leaders involved should be arrested and charged (possibly with seditious conspiracy). And everyone connected with the voter fraud, down to the lowest levels, should be sought out and arrested, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.