I have seven remaining unanswered questions about the security of our election systems.
1. Has there ever been a large scale election fraud that was only discovered by chance?
And if so, does the opportunity for a similar fraud still exists?
2. Could a hacker with "God Access" to election systems change a national election result in a big way that would be undetectable via recount, audit or any other method?
3. Would selective recounts and audits requested by the losing side be sufficient to detect fraud that could be spread across multiple precincts so as to look like nothing but good turnout?
4. Would the combination of physical ballot recounts plus statistical sampling to make sure some number of individual ballots were valid, detect all forms of large scale fraud?
5. On a scale of 1-to-100%, how secure are our state election systems in terms of any opportunities for large scale national fraud?
6. Have U.S. elections ever been rigged in ways that election officials had never contemplated until it was discovered?
7. Have election EXPERTS seen any red flags for widespread fraud in the 2020 election?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I thought I had a mouse in the house because I saw droppings. But I searched for it with my compass and proved there was no mouse. Now I feel better.
I was worried my car was low on oil because a dashboard message said it was. But I used a blood pressure monitor to determine the oil level is fine. Now I feel better.
I was concerned about potential crime in my neighborhood, so I researched it with a barometer and saw no criminals in my zip code. Now I feel better.
Here are six easy ways to know you live in a propaganda bubble and the Fake News Industry is malicious:
1. The Fake News tells you Trump is "lying" about the election being stolen as opposed to actually believing it, the way tens-of-millions of his supporters do. The Fake News mind-reading act is propaganda.
2. The Fake News tells you all of the election fraud claims have been rejected by courts. But where is the master list of all the (non-crazy) claims and which court rejected them and why? If that list doesn't exist, assume you have been fed propaganda, not news.
Here's a big dog that isn't barking: I've been saying in public since the election that the design of our system doesn't just ALLOW potential fraud, it GUARANTEES it. By design. Because it is both feasible (we have learned) and the potential gain is enormous.
Under those conditions, a reasonable person with even modest experience in life understands that massive fraud HAD to have happened. You don't need to observe it to know it with certainty.
By analogy, if I drop ice cream on a hot sidewalk in summer, I don't need to stay and observe it to know it melted. I can walk away and be equally certain. Our election system (all of it) is like that ice cream. Don't tell me I have to show you proof it melted. It melted.
If we can't audit our nation's vote-counting software because the company claims it is proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that. But obviously the election has to be thrown out in whole for that very reason. I see no room for compromise on this point.
Who agreed to a no-audit deal with an election software company? Name ANYTHING you have ever heard that is dumber. Literally anything. You can't.
Will the Supreme Court give a free pass to an election that was non-transparent BY DESIGN? Accidental would be one thing, but non-auditable voting machines are not an accident.
As a public service, I’m going to give you a way to trigger your anti-Trump family members into severe cognitive dissonance over the holidays.
When your uncle says Trump botched the coronavirus response and killed a quarter-million people, don’t just argue that Trump did great on vaccines. Instead. . .
Pace your uncle by agreeing the outcome so far is dreadful and Trump probably lost the election because of it. Then spring the trap...
CNN keeps reporting that claims of election fraud are "baseless." I had to look up the word to be sure I still know what it means.
Merriam Webster defines "baseless" as "having no basis in reason or fact"
Given that courts have not ruled on all of the MANY alleged election fraud allegations, I agree to not call them verified facts. But does that qualify as baseless? The definition includes "reason," not just fact.
Let's look at the reason.
Crime happens 100% of the time when you have extreme motivation matched with ample opportunity. We have learned in the past week there are LOTS of opportunities for cheating in our porous election system so long as you can control the witnessing process, which is the case.