The Distributed Election Fraud Model

[PRB]

It's real. But there was nothing for the lawyer to "lie under oath" about.

The transcription is from Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, which was an attempt to halt ballot counting on the basis of improper ballot handling. It had nothing to do with any allegations of fraud (which is precisely what the court's questions were intended to establish).

if it wasn't fraud, then it's immaterial to the outcome of this election ,and thus a waste of courts time.

[PRB]

Last minute, 4AM ballot stuffing is explicitly the sort of election fraud that this distributed election fraud model says doesn't exist.

Also, if those ballots were Biden-only, why did the late-counted ballots change numbers in downballot races too? You can look at the election #s from Nov 3 and later and see that those ballots were clearly not Biden-only.




2018 was 'too many' Republicans taken out and they had to back off of that?

Why don't I remember mass allegations of election fraud from 2018, then?




Why is it that voter turnout in those key districts of those key states was unaffected, then? Turnout in swing states was up by the same % in red areas as blue for 2020. Does this new, magical kind of election fraud also include adding fraudulent GOP ballots to match the Dem ballots?

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why they waiting last minute to cheat and get caught if they had 3 weeks to mix them in?

ESPECIALLY in states like PA where they don't even start counting until election day.

[Occam's Banana]

if it wasn't fraud, then it's immaterial to the outcome of this election ,and thus a waste of courts time.

It isn't. If ballots are improperly handled (among other possible problems - such as fraud), then their integrity cannot be verified and they might therefore be invalidated. This is why they have such laws to begin with. Enforcing the law if it can be established that the law has not been observed is not "a waste of the court's time" - it's the reason for the court's existence in the first place.

[Contumacious]

nice conspiracy theory, would be a shame if somebody asked for evidence

YO , PRB , whistleblowers and affiants have provided testimonial evidence .

Furthermore the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to ignore the Legislature's intent,

So we are dealing with several issues.

[Contumacious]

It isn't. If ballots are improperly handled (among other possible problems - such as fraud), then their integrity cannot be verified and they might therefore be invalidated. This is why they have such laws to begin with. Enforcing the law if it can be established that the law has not been observed is not a waste of the court's time - it's the reason for the court's existence in the first place.

EXACTLY

[PRB]

YO , PRB , whistleblowers and affiants have provided testimonial evidence .

evidence that there's substantial votes that aren't legal?

[PRB]

It isn't. If ballots are improperly handled (among other possible problems - such as fraud), then their integrity cannot be verified and they might therefore be invalidated. This is why they have such laws to begin with. Enforcing the law if it can be established that the law has not been observed is not "a waste of the court's time" - it's the reason for the court's existence in the first place.

yeah, "might" but until you prove that they "were" improper to begin with, you got nothing.

[Occam's Banana]

yeah, "might" but until you prove that they "were" improper to begin with, you got nothing.

I have never said otherwise. (And I am not party to any of the suits, so I don't need to "have" or to "prove" anything.)

The existence of the courts is predicated upon the resolution of such matters; thus, such matters are not, as you asserted, a "waste of the court's time." Such matters are why the courts exist in the first place.

[PRB]

I have never said otherwise. (And I am not party to any of the suits, so I don't need to "have" or to "prove" anything.)

The existence of the courts is predicated upon the resolution of such matters; thus, such matters are not, as you asserted, a "waste of the court's time." Such matters are why the courts exist in the first place.

no, it's not, courts are for things that matter.

[tod evans]

no, it's not, courts are for things that matter.

Now a whole 'nuther group of people will learn of what I speak when I say "Justice will not be found in their courts."

I find it humorous that either group will face that reality.

Time to suck it up Buttercup.

(These sentiments hold true whether you're a Rep. or a Dem.)

[pcosmar]

evidence that there's substantial votes that aren't legal?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the...-ghost-voters/

Atrim County,,CAUGHT and corrected .[Evidence]. in one county out of 80.

[PRB]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the...-ghost-voters/

Atrim County,,CAUGHT and corrected .[Evidence]. in one county out of 80.

those are not votes, you can't even read.

[pcosmar]

those are not votes, you can't even read.

I can and do..You apparently refuse to accept evidence shown to you..

That is a special kind of Stupid.

[PRB]

I can and do..You apparently refuse to accept evidence shown to you..

That is a special kind of Stupid.

you did not show evidence that there's more votes than registered people.

you can't read. or you're a liar.

[Occam's Banana]

no, it's not, courts are for things that matter.

*yawn* (again)

*yawn* In order to summarily dismiss those claims as "bull$#@!," you have to already have assumed the answer to the question at issue.

What you or I think is or isn't "bull$#@!" is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is what the courts will think - all the way up to SCOTUS.

[PRB]

*yawn* (again)

*yawn* In order to summarily dismiss those claims as "bull$#@!," you have to already have assumed the answer to the question at issue.

No, I don't. The person making the extraordinary claim has the onus.

[pcosmar]

evidence that there's substantial votes that aren't legal?

Yes EVIDENCE that SUBSTANTIAL votes are Illegal.. at least 1.8 million and very likely more.

[PRB]

Yes EVIDENCE that SUBSTANTIAL votes are Illegal.. at least 1.8 million and very likely more.

that's not what the article said. read it again.

[pcosmar]

that's not what the article said. read it again.

Evidence has been found.. Evidence has been Documented..

The election is Illegitimate..

it may be the Supreme Court that Decides..or Perhaps the Electoral College will respond to the Massive Fraud.

yet to be seen.

[PRB]

Evidence has been found.. Evidence has been Documented..

The election is Illegitimate..

it may be the Supreme Court that Decides..or Perhaps the Electoral College will respond to the Massive Fraud.

yet to be seen.

no there hasn't, the SCOTUS isn't going to weigh in on something that lacks the most basic evidence.

there's no substantial fraud that would've affected the election, not to say there couldn;t have been a few people out of millions, but nowhere near the thousands needed to change the outcome.

still waiting on you to prove "more votes than registered voters"

[Occam's Banana]

The existence of the courts is predicated upon the resolution of such matters; thus, such matters are not, as you asserted, a "waste of the court's time." Such matters are why the courts exist in the first place.

no, it's not, courts are for things that matter.

No, I don't. The person making the extraordinary claim has the onus.

As will be adjudicated by the courts - which don't give a $#@! whether you or I think it is a "thing that matters."

QED

[Brian4Liberty]

The distributed election fraud model has been implemented, and by design, it is a death by a thousand cuts.

Memory stick here, memory stick there, before long it starts adding up to real votes...

[Brian4Liberty]

4AM ballot stuffing isn't distributed. It can't be distributed. There is no way for an ordinary person, poll worker, or election official to print and fill out valid ballots on the night after the election has concluded. That necessitates a massive, top-down conspiracy.
...

"Distributed" does not mean that it is all ones and twos. It does not rule out large batches of ballots from Democrat operative cells, and it doesn't rule out larger vote manipulation by Antifa and Democrat operatives who run Dominion.

And one of the accusations is that if the fraud by ones and tens is not working out, then they go to the more extreme measures. They stop the count, and bring in the big guns.

[Contumacious]

you did not show evidence that there's more votes than registered people.

you can't read. or you're a liar.

YO PRB

chill out dawg

Conducting forensic toxicology or fraud analysis takes time.

But early reports out of Wayne County Michigan are promising.


The Board of Canvassers refused to certify the election results.


Unfortunately your people , the two fellow canvassers who dissented , two thugs named Ned Staebler and Abraham Aiyash coerced and applied duress by claiming that the canvassers who refused to certify the elections , were racists and they threatened their school children.

That's not going to fly.

[PRB]

YO PRB

chill out dawg

Conducting forensic toxicology or fraud analysis takes time.

But early reports out of Wayne County Michigan are promising.


The Board of Canvassers refused to certify the election results.


Unfortunately your people , the two fellow canvassers who dissented , two thugs named Ned Staebler and Abraham Aiyash coerced and applied duress by claiming that the canvassers who refused to certify the elections , were racists and they threatened their school children.

That's not going to fly.

I was banned for almost 3 months, I hope you guys had fun lying to yourselves.

In that time, I made over $20,000 playing with stocks.

So, thanks for reminding me I had better things to do with my time

[pcosmar]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...X3ghRnDp-BsWQs

Judicial Watch has released a comparison study of Census Bureau population statistics and state voter registration data to reveal a notable disparity. The watch dog group is now warning of potential voter fraud and “dirty” voter rolls.

The study found that 352 U.S. counties in 29 states managed to have 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens.

[PRB]

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...X3ghRnDp-BsWQs

"The study found that 352 U.S. counties in 29 states managed to have 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens."

Which is not the same as more votes than registered people, as you claimed. Nor was this controlled for blue vs red, meaning it's just as likely that red states "cheated" by this crappy logic.

[acptulsa]

"The study found that 352 U.S. counties in 29 states managed to have 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens."

Which is not the same as more votes than registered people, as you claimed. Nor was this controlled for blue vs red, meaning it's just as likely that red states "cheated" by this crappy logic.

That talks about counties, not states, as you were told before. Red states often have blue counties. The eight states with more registrations than people eligible to vote are listed, and we know if they're "red" or not.

The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont,” reported Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group.

You're not the least bit interested in the truth. Why aren't you clicking on these links? Afraid you'll find facts there that disprove your random aspersions?

Keep grasping at straws.

[PRB]

That talks about counties, not states, as you were told before. Red states often have blue counties. The eight states with more registrations than people eligible to vote are listed, and we know if they're "red" or not.

So, you didn't say there's more votes than people or more votes than eligible. funny.

You're not the least bit interested in the truth. Why aren't you clicking on these links? Afraid you'll find facts there that disprove your random aspersions?

Keep grasping at straws.

I'm not the one who's lost every single court challenge

[pcosmar]

I'm not the one who's lost every single court challenge

No Court has even looked at any evidence at all.

Refused to do so.