A second firm hired by Trump campaign found no evidence of election fraud

Former president Trump’s campaign quietly commissioned a second firm to study election fraud claims in the weeks after the 2020 election, and the founder of the firm was recently questioned by the Justice Department about his work disproving the claims.

Ken Block, founder of the firm Simpatico Software Systems, studied more than a dozen voter fraud theories and allegations for Trump’s campaign in late 2020 and found they were “all false,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post.

“No substantive voter fraud was uncovered in my investigations looking for it, nor was I able to confirm any of the outside claims of voter fraud that I was asked to look at,” he said. “Every fraud claim I was asked to investigate was false.”

Block said he recently received a subpoena from special counsel Jack Smith’s office and met with federal prosecutors in Washington, but he declined to discuss his interactions with them. Block said he contemporaneously sent his findings disputing fraud claims in writing to the Trump campaign in late 2020...

Prosecutors are trying to show that Trump and his advisers definitively knew — or had good reason to believe — that their myriad fraud claims were false as they continued to spread and fundraise off the claims. The claims ultimately convinced many voters the election was stolen and inspired rioters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The falsehoods also brought in more than $250 million to Trump and his allies.

Key to building such a case, experts say, is proving that Trump and other advisers making the claims publicly did not believe them or had evidence to know they were false.

Milwaukee’s 3rd ward for one

Also 2nd 4th 6th 9th 10th

=========

Your statement is above--

I checked the official wisconsin returns -- and the registration numbers

This is the returns

https://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Ward%2520by%2520Ward%2520Report%2520-%2520President%2520of%2520the%2520United%2520States%2520%2528under%2520recount%2529.pdf -- See Pages 135 and 137 I will try to post the registration link as well

Here it is -- see rows 3250 to 3562 (scattered)

https://elections.wi.gov/resources/statistics/november-1-2020-voter-registration-statistics

They have registration numbers for November 1 (just before the election) and December 1 ( month after) The latter figures are usually a small bit higher (late registrants) but let's use the lower number of registrants to be conservative.

WARD 2 -- 529 registered, 356 voted

WARD 3 -- 1111 registered, 873 voted

WARD 4 -- 1924 registered, 1474 voted

WARD 6 -- 2184 registered, 1771 voted

WARD 9 -- 884 registered, 751 voted

WARD 10 -- 1452 registered, 1174 voted.

So, again, I would be interested in your source, and what kind of numbers they claim.

This is not to say that there can't be other kinds of fraud, but voting more people than are registered is not one of them.

About the turnout percentages:

You can calculate turnout as a percentage of registered voters, or as a percentage of all adult citizens who could have registered and voted. The latter percentage will obviously be lower. (For example, if there are 224 adults, of whom 158 register, and 138 of them vote, then the turnout is 87.3% of the registered voters but only 61.6% of the adult population.)

Each statistic will tell you something interesting. What doesn’t make sense is to use different calculations for successive elections and then argue that the change reflects something fundamental. It reflects nothing but statistical sleight-of-hand. That’s what’s going on when people claim that turnout in 2020 jumped from 60-some percent to 90-some percent.

The lower number is the one more commonly used. By this measure, turnout was up about six or seven percentage points in 2020, a year when many jurisdictions made it easier to vote by mail. Recent presidential election numbers:
2000: 54.2%
2004: 60.1%
2008: 61.6%
2012: 58.6%
2016: 60.1%
2020: 66.6%

Biden 2020 got about 15.4 million more votes than Clinton 2016. Does that show Democratic fraud? Well, Trump 2020 got about 11.2 million more votes than Trump 2016. Does that show Republican fraud? I prefer the obvious explanation: EACH party got millions more votes, because millions more people voted. Trump’s share of the vote actually increased, from 46.1% in 2016 to 46.8% in 2020. Biden won because he racked up an even bigger increase over Clinton’s share (51.3% versus her 48.2%).

That three-point difference could have been fraud. Or maybe a lot of people just didn’t like Hillary. The overall numbers don’t prove or disprove the allegation of widespread fraud. You have to look at the specific cases.

Then explain to me how Trump beat Trump by 11 million votes. Did the Republicans commit massive voter fraud in 2020, to juice up Trump’s total that way?

Biden got 51.3% of the vote. In Obama’s two runs, he got 52.9% and then 51.1%. So they did about as well. Obama had the advantage of being a more charismatic speaker. Biden had the advantage of running against Trump after the media had spent four years savaging him. (Obama never ran against an incumbent.)

Why did Biden get millions more raw votes than Obama? Same reason Trump 2020 got millions more raw votes than Trump 2016. In the 2020 election, LOTS more people voted. Here are the total numbers of votes cast in Obama’s two elections and in Trump’s two elections:

2008 131,313,820
2012 129,085,410
2016 136,669,276
2020 158,429,631

One possible explanation for the big jump from 2016 to 2020 is that the Democrats pumped more than 20 million fraudulent votes into the system. But if that’s what happened, why did roughly half those extra votes go to Trump? Why did Trump get a slightly HIGHER percentage of the popular vote in 2020 than he did in 2016?

The more plausible explanation is pretty obvious: A lot of states made voting easier (more early-voting days, no-excuse mail-in ballots, etc.), so turnout went up by several percentage points. Those new voters broke in roughly the same proportion as in other recent elections. Therefore, EACH major party made an eight-figure gain in its vote total.

Then explain to me how Trump beat Trump by 11 million votes.

Why would that be a mystery? In 2016, a lot of people thought he was going to be a liberal president, including myself. He's from New York and he has had long association with Democrats and he was socially liberal on homosexuals, so a lot of us wasn't sure what to think of him. We just knew Hillary was a horrible nasty hate bitch and absolutely could not win.

By 2020, we had realized that Trump was the greatest president we had ever seen in our lives. He was better than Reagan. His economic numbers were awesome, his prevention of wars was very appreciated, his working out better deals with other nations was brilliant, his court appointments were good, and he was an all around awesome freaking President.

So of course *HE* would get millions more votes than he did in 2016, but there is absolutely no way to make any sense of that corrupt, stupid, nasty piece of sh*t Joe Biden doing better than Barack Obama, let alone Trump.

IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Did the Republicans commit massive voter fraud in 2020, to juice up Trump’s total that way?

Are you pretending to be dumb, or are you actually dumb? Republicans have no control over vote fraud. They don't control the big cities. Secondly, as I explained above, Trump got his increase naturally. A lot of wishy washy voters became enthusiastic voters. Trump did an awesome job.

The more plausible explanation is pretty obvious: A lot of states made voting easier (more early-voting days, no-excuse mail-in ballots, etc.), so turnout went up by several percentage points.

Corrupt turnout went up. Fake voters were registered, and ballots were filled out in their names. I believe a team in Arizona identified about 200,000 fake voters on the rolls with "residences" in parking lots and businesses. Corrupt ballot harvesters went to nursing homes and registered all the senile and demented people, and of course the corrupt ballot harvesters voted for them.

People registered felons, and stole votes from other people by voting first by mail.

You clearly have not looked at all the various types of fraud that we've identified since the 2020 election. You haven't been keeping up, so that's why you don't know.

You’re STARTING with the assumptions that Biden is a “corrupt, stupid, nasty piece of sh*t” and that Trump was “the greatest president we had ever seen in our lives.” That shields you from any difficult analysis. Instead, it’s just circular reasoning: The party I like gained votes because people realized how wonderful we are, and the party I dislike gained votes because of fraud.

You refer to Biden doing better than Obama, and you intone “IT DID NOT HAPPEN.” You’re right, it didn’t. Obama in his first run got 52.9% of the vote. Biden in his first run got 51.3% of the vote.

You write: “You clearly have not looked at all the various types of fraud that we’ve identified since the 2020 election. You haven’t been keeping up, so that’s why you don’t know.”

I addressed that point, too. It’s in my post if you trouble to read it. You’ll see that my post didn’t even try to look at types of fraud. I was addressing only one particular argument: the claim that the overall numbers, by themselves, are proof of fraud. They simply aren’t. That’s why I wrote: “The overall numbers don’t prove or disprove the allegation of widespread fraud. You have to look at the specific cases.”

A system that allows mail-in ballots provides an opportunity for fraud. In addition, however, it provides an opportunity for people (legitimate voters!) to vote even if they’re too sick or too busy or too lazy to go to the polling place on Election Day. You can’t assume that EVERY mail-in ballot was fraudulent. The undeniable truths are: Several states made voting easier in 2020; turnout went up by more than 20 million from 2016 to 2020, which is what you would expect (because of the more permissive rules) even if there was no fraud; and, of the 158 million votes that were cast, the parties’ respective proportions were pretty close to what they’d been in 2016.

The issue with fraud isn’t that Biden, running in a much larger electorate, got more votes than Obama or Clinton had. The issue is that both 2016 and 2020 were unusually close elections. It wouldn’t take all that much fraud to change the result. That’s why I said “to look at the specific cases.” If, instead, you want to go around claiming that the Democrats somehow engineered 20 million fraudulent votes, though, you won’t be persuading anyone except those already committed.

You’re STARTING with the assumptions that Biden is a “corrupt, stupid, nasty piece of sh*t” and that Trump was “the greatest president we had ever seen in our lives.”

Well yes I am, because the evidence is overwhelming for both things being absolutely true.

That shields you from any difficult analysis.

What is difficult? My premise is very accurate.

Instead, it’s just circular reasoning:

No it isn't. It's factually true. Biden *IS* a nasty corrupt piece of sh*t and he always was, going all the way back to the early 1970s when this idiot piece of sh*t led the effort to shut off funding to the South Vietnamese government and thereby precipitating their overthrow and the loss of the Vietnam war.

Biden is a horrible person and he's done horrible things in his private life (like having sex with his baby sitter who is now his wife Jill), showering with his daughter, and engaging in corrupt activities his entire time in Congress.

I addressed that point, too. It’s in my post if you trouble to read it. You’ll see that my post didn’t even try to look at types of fraud.

Yes, I noticed, and it now has me wondering why I should engage in a discussion with someone who has *NOT* looked at the evidence, and who shows no inclination to do so.

I was addressing only one particular argument: the claim that the overall numbers, by themselves, are proof of fraud. They simply aren’t.

I disagree. I also do not believe the official numbers. Your problem is that you simply accept what the liars in power tell you is true. I, on the other hand, have seen how the Obama administration started lying about inflation by changing how they calculate inflation, and they did so to cover up for his incompetence and stupidity in economic matters.

They will make the numbers seem reasonable *IF* your premise is that they are honest. I do not believe that at all. Here's an example of the sort of corruption we are dealing with.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, We The People AZ Alliance estimated that nearly 300,000 ballots were pushed through the system with no signature verification in 2022.

The legitimate numbers that this applies to is so small that it is absolutely not worth the cost of accommodating them. The increase in danger from the vote fraud/corruption thus allowed is simply not worth the benefit of making it easier for a teeny tiny minority of people to vote.

You can’t assume that EVERY mail-in ballot was fraudulent.

On another computer, I have a link to a video of a man involved in the Arizona audit of Maricopa county. He said that in 2016, Military ballots were 1,600. In 2020 they were 9,600. He also said that in 2020, 95% of the military ballots were for Biden. He also said they weren't returned in the form required. What he had examined as "military ballots" were printed copies of ballots on 8 x 11 sheets of plain printer paper. No chain of custody, no legitimate ballots, and way way way lopsided in results.

Now I study political Demographics and I have for a very long time, and Arizona already leans Republican, and the Military also leans Republican, and heavily so. It is completely nonsensical to believe that an increase of 6 times the volume accompanied by a 95% vote for a piece of sh*t like Biden is legitimate.

It is false and corrupt on the very face of it.

If, instead, you want to go around claiming that the Democrats somehow engineered 20 million fraudulent votes, though, you won’t be persuading anyone except those already committed.

Stop it. You are trying to rephrase the problem to support your claim that everything was legitimate. The margin of the election in Arizona and Georgia was something like 11,000 votes. Just the fraudulent Military votes in Maricopa county Arizona could have made up the winning margin. In Fulton County Georgia we have *VIDEO* of them committing the vote fraud. Just Ruby Freeman alone could have produced 11,000 fake votes for Biden.

Hillary won the popular vote, but the presidency is decided by just a little vote fraud in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

It only required the flipping of a few hundred thousand to change the results of a fair election.

Our problem here is that you’re reading too much into my posts, with the result that you’re disagreeing with things I never said.

A revealing exchange:
Me: “I addressed that point, too. It’s in my post if you trouble to read it. You’ll see that my post didn’t even try to look at types of fraud.”
You: “Yes, I noticed, and it now has me wondering why I should engage in a discussion with someone who has *NOT* looked at the evidence, and who shows no inclination to do so.”

I think you’re assuming that I’m arguing there was no fraud. I never said that. There are many, many allegations of fraud out there. I couldn’t address all of them without writing a book – and my posts were already very long. If you look at the other posts in this thread, nobody else tries to assess all the evidence about all the allegations, either.

With my limited mental capacity (plus not having the time to write a book), I chose to address one particular argument – the claim that the overall numbers are evidence of fraud. That argument fails. That’s why I wrote that “You have to look at the specific cases.” I reject the argument that “Biden got more votes than Obama nationwide so there must have been fraud.” The obvious next step is to go on to look at specific cases, like the points you make about Maricopa County and Georgia.

Here’s the key point: You can believe that there was fraud without accepting every single allegation that anyone anywhere makes.

Well then I misunderstood what you meant. Having kept up with the various articles I read here and on other sites regarding the various types of fraud, it makes me think the only people who would question it are the ones who haven't bothered to learn about it.

I reject the argument that “Biden got more votes than Obama nationwide so there must have been fraud.”

But your foundation for rejecting it is acceptance of the numbers produced by the very entity who's own interests coincide with the result. They have a self interest in asserting the election was fair and proper, and therefore they cannot necessarily be trusted in what they claim. Your argument is based on circular reasoning. (The Numbers must be fair because they say so. They say so because this protects their own interests. Therefore the numbers must be fair because they say so. )

Whenever someone is in control of the outcome, it will tend to reflect their own self interest.

In the official counts, the increase in turnout from 2016 to 2020 was more than 20 million votes. Do you have an opinion as to how much of that increase was caused by fraud, versus how much represented legitimate voters (who voted because of the widespread easing of voting procedures adopted in many states)? My opinion is that the increase was almost entirely legitimate, and is what we would have seen with or without fraud.

You and I are in agreement that a shift of a very small number of votes in a few key states would have swung the 2020 election. So what I’m saying is:
1) If you assume hypothetically that there was a complete absence of fraud, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties.
2) If instead you assume that the Democrats were ready, willing, and able to commit fraud so as to steal the election, but you know they didn’t need to steal millions of votes to accomplish that, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in legitimate turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties, but with a comparatively small overlay of fraud so as to oust Trump.

In other words, the observable data (namely, the official counts) are perfectly consistent with either hypothesis. Therefore, looking at the totals doesn’t prove or disprove fraud.

How much sewage water can you add to drinking water before it becomes undrinkable?

1) If you assume hypothetically that there was a complete absence of fraud, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties.

Changing the rules was the first bit of fraud. The new rules allowed unsecured, no chain of custody ballots into the system. It allowed fake people, senile people, felons, illegals, etc to vote in the system.

2) If instead you assume that the Democrats were ready, willing, and able to commit fraud so as to steal the election, but you know they didn’t need to steal millions of votes to accomplish that, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in legitimate turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties, but with a comparatively small overlay of fraud so as to oust Trump.

This presumes that all the different agents of the Democrat party knew how many they needed and where they needed them. I have no doubt that all the agents of the Democrat party were rigging votes in any state that allowed them to do it. Perhaps some of the higher level crooks knew exactly where they needed to concentrate their efforts, but the vast majority of the lower level crooks simply stuffed ballots into the system wherever they were.

In other words, the observable data (namely, the official counts) are perfectly consistent with either hypothesis. Therefore, looking at the totals doesn’t prove or disprove fraud.

I think the 7% increase in votes is itself proof of fraud.

Turnout is subject to many different factors besides fraud. Exact measurements of percentage turnout can vary, depending on definitions (e.g., trying to take account of U.S. citizens living abroad), so percentages given to the nearest tenth are pretty suspect. Keeping that in mind, the increase from 2000 to 2004 was about 5.9 percentage points, and from 2016 to 2020 it was about 6.5 percentage points.

Is every such increase, by itself, proof of fraud? If so, is every significant decrease proof that fraud had been reduced?

Turnout has been much higher and much lower than in 2020. In 1868, the first election after the Civil War, it was 80.9%. But in 1924 it was 48.9%. You can’t simply assume that the legitimate turnout is some fixed percentage from year to year. It varies.

Changes in the official totals certainly include changes in undetected fraud but also include changes in legitimate turnout. It’s obvious that all the changes adopted in several states in 2020 (such as no-excuse mail-in voting) would significantly increase legitimate turnout.

Your position is “I think the 7% increase in votes is itself proof of fraud.” History doesn’t justify that inference. If you think it does, we probably have nothing more to discuss.

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.