Posted on 11/13/2025 8:23:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
President Trump lost the tools necessary to examine the 2020 election process for fraud when he left office on January 20, 2021.
He regained those tools on January 20, 2025.
The questions were the same on both dates, although we know more now than we knew then -- or so we think.
Too many examinations of the events in the country between Dec. 15 and Jan. 6 , 2021, are built on the premise of what we we think we know as a result of examinations that took place over many months and years AFTER the election of November 3, 2020. To write with the benefit of "20-20 hindsight" is to bring a bias to the discussion.
Let me make my bias clear -- as I have tried to do the few times since I've written on this subject over the past 5 years:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know with any certainly one way or the other whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump received more validly cast and counted ballots in the 2020 election.
Recounts are not "audits" so the fact that some states conducted recounts that did not result in a change of outcome does not prove that the ballots recounted were validly cast. No state conducted an audit of the election process for the purpose of verifying that only validly cast ballots were counted. Each invalidly cast ballot that is counted cancels out a validly cast ballot for the opposing candidate.
Each state has its own procedures in state law for the ostensible losing candidate to bring an "election contest" to challenge the accuracy of the election outcome. NONE of those procedures are designed to accommodate the timing requirements of a Presidential election, where federal law requires a meeting of the Electoral College in each state on the "First Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December" at which time its Electoral Votes are cast and recorded.
This generally takes place 40-45 days depending on Election Day. There is no state procedure that is designed to produce an outcome of an "election contest" within 45 days of the votes being cast -- with the exception of small states with a relatively small number of counties and a small number of votes cast.
There is no uniform standard for what is to happen if outcome-determinative fraud IS discovered during a validly filed "election contest."
Georgia state law requires a new election. Nevada state law declares the original losing candidate to be declared as the winner. What would a judge or governor have done in Jan. 2021 if there was outcome determinative fraud conclusively established in Michigan or Arizona? The lack of a good answer to that question is one reason why all the conclusions were "There is no evidence of outcome determinative fraud" in the contested states.
WE DO NOT HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM OF FRAUD THAT CHANGES THE OUTCOME OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
In my opinion, Democrats realized this and began to exploit it several cycles ago. The most important fact in a razor-thin election outcome is to be the first to declare victory and have the press line up behind that claim -- to "Speak It Into Being."
The next election axiom of the Democrat Party is that the power that comes with winning the Presidency and control of the Executive Branch is worth the risk that comes with cheating to get that power -- especially when the prospect of having the illegitimate outcome overturned is practically nil. That's why you have relentless lawfare by the likes of Marc Elias and Norm Eisen ahead of elections.
Based on the above, my view is that there was no meaningful process to investigate allegations of fraud in the conduct of the statewide elections in the 2020 Presidential vote. Declarative statements by some that there was no "outcome determinative fraud" in any of the state elections in 2020 are simply a projection of the bias of the persons making them.
I don't know whether that is true -- and neither does anyone else.
But I do know this -- numbers are numbers and they tell a tale:
The 131 million total votes cast in 2008 was a record, boosted by the historic candidacy of Pres. Obama.
Yet 12 years later, Joe Biden -- NOBODY's version of a historic candidate - was the winner in a new record-setting turnout election in which 27.1 million more votes were cast than in 2008, an increase of 21% in just 4 election cycles.
The voting age population -- potential voters -- increased over those same four election cycles by only 10.5% - 24.2 million.
So Joe Biden's vote total, when compared against the historical campaign of Barack Obama, realized an increase 2x greater than the growth of the potential voter pool.
Between 2016 and 2020, the eligible number of voting age U.S. citizens increased by 8.8 million. Joe Biden received 15.4 million more votes than did Clinton - again almost 2x the increase in voting age eligible US citizens. That's not the increase in registered voters - but just the increase in the pool of potential registered voters.
Here is the yearly changes in voting age population compared to increase in total votes cast from 2008 to 2024 in millions -- one is not like the others:
2008-12: +5.4 mil. potential voters v. -- 2.2 mil decrease in votes cast.
2012-16: +10 mil potential voters v. +7.6 mil increase in votes cast
2016-20: +8.8 mil potential new voters v. +21.7 mil increase in votes cast
2020-24: +4.2 mil potential new voters v. 2.1 mil decrease in votes cast.
Of the past four election cycles, the increase in votes cast over the prior election has been smaller than the increase in new potential eligible voters -- citizens over the age of 18 -- three times. This simply reflects that not everyone newly eligible to vote each new Presidential cycle registers and casts a ballot.
The one year that didn't happen -- 2020 -- the increase in votes cast was not only bigger than the number of newly eligible voters -- it was nearly 2.5x larger than the increase in the new voting age population.
If you reduced the overall 21.7 million vote increase by the 8.8 million newly eligible voters, the difference of 12.9 million cast ballots can only be attributed to people who have been eligible but didn't cast ballots in previous elections.
Assume that the 12.9 million votes were split 60-40% for Joe Biden -- that would have added nearly 8 million new votes to the vote total of Hillary Clinton four years earlier. That would have meant roughly 74 million votes for Biden.
So then you have to look at the 8.8 million potential newly eligible voters in the pool, and to get Joe Biden to 81 million votes, 7 million of those new voters -- 90% -- must have voted for Biden AND that is only if the ALL voted.
If you split the new 8.8 million voters 60-40 for Biden, that gets him to only 5 million new votes greater than Hillary -- or 72 million total.
Then to get to the 81 million he received, he would have needed to get 70% of the votes cast by the 12.9 million who had never voted before when eligible. Not only did Democrats need to motivate them to vote when they never had, they needed to get nearly 3-in-4 to vote for Joe Biden.
Some have written about the fact that the increase in vote totals rose across many states, not just the states won by Joe Biden. To a degree this is true. Two of the three states with the biggest increases in raw vote totals from 2016 to 2020 were Texas and Florida. But they are two of the biggest states by population so that stands to reason.
The states that flipped from 2016 to 2020, producing Biden's win, were: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
When you consider the list of the 51 states' -- including DC -- percentage increases in total votes cast between 2016 and 2020, here is where those five states land:
No. 5: Arizona -- 10.9%
No. 7: Wisconsin -- 10.8%
No. 8: Michigan -- 10.8%
No. 9: Pennsylvania -- 10.7%
No. 10: Georgia -- 10.6%
No 1 was Hawaii at 34%. Texas was No. 15 (9.7%) and Florida was No. 29 (8.3%)
The bottom 10 were Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Alabama, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and New Hampshire -- 9 of them states that have voted 3 times for Pres. Trump. None had Democrats in charge of the state governments. All had increases in vote totals in 2020 -- but the voting age population increases each cycle too.
There are too many stories to recount here about "anomalies" on the day, night, and morning after the election. I'm not attributing any particular truth or veracity to any of the stories. But you certainly had a massive volume of mail-in ballots beyond anything in the history of the country.
You also had changes made to state election laws by partisan actors leading up to and even after election day -- such as the changes by Pennsylvania to what it would accept as a valid mail-in ballot.
You had stops and restarts in vote tabulations in the middle of the night -- whatever the cause.
You had the use of an electronic voting system in Georgia that only weeks before the election had been determined by a federal judge after extensive expert testimony to be not secure and subject to outside penetration.
We had the use of electronic voting systems without paper ballots created by the machines for back-up verification. We had electronic systems plugged into the internet to receive firmware updates contrary to the advice of every election security expert asked to testify about it.
We had big city vote counting take place under circumstances DESIGNED To eliminate transparency in jurisdictions where one-party control of the voting processes has existed for decades and is a matter of generational inheritance.
A President has a duty to the entire country to see that the laws are faithfully executed. If any President has unanswered questions about possible election fraud at the state level during the time period between election day and the Inauguration, to do nothing is to abdicate the responsibility to the voters who cast their ballots for the ostensible losing candidate IF there is evidence that the candidate they voted for might actually have won. Those voters would have had their civil rights violated if subjected to the leadership of a President who did not receive the necessary number of votes to hold that Office.
The fact that the incumbent President is one of the two parties in the election contest -- i.e., he has a "conflict of interest" -- is meaningless. We have only one President at a time, and that President cannot delegate to others the responsibility vested in him and him alone to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
That is also true now. The 47th President of the United States, now that he has the tools, has an obligation to examine the 2020 election with the Department of Justice if he concludes that the 46th President failed to do so out of the 46th's President's self-interest to not have his victory called into question.
The same principle applies to the actions of Congress between 2021 and 2025.
The events of January 6 were not the beginning and end of the controversies surrounding the 2020 election. The constituency of the Republican Party is not required to accept the conclusions of the Biden Presidency or the Democrat led Congress about what happened.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Bellwether County History
Stalin is grinning.
Kamala Harris was ineligible for the Vice Presidency (as well as for the Presidency), as she was not a natural-born citizen in violation of requirements stated by the Constitution.
Possibly the Supreme Court ruling on the 14th Amendment, invalidating "anchor baby"citizenship claims, will more clearly resolve this issue.
I saw a story on DU last night about how there was FINALLY someone looking into the 2024 election, as it was CERTAINLY stolen from Kamala.
look i get we need this, but it’s more important to look at state level fraud because that is where most of it is
Sadly much of the evidence has been legally destroyed at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.