re: Trump is Set to Expose Two Democratic Senators Illegitimately Elected Due to Fraud

quote:

---

Look who they ran against. Trump thought it was a good idea to run Herschel Walker as a Senator

---

quote:

---

As I have noted before, there is very real evidence of cheating in Fulton County GA in 2020. The reason it has not led to arrests and indictments is that the Democrats have done a masterful job of stalling the investigations.

I doubt Trump announces arrests on Thursday, but I would see it as a positive step if he uses evidence from the Fulton County voter fraud to promote passing the Save Act.

---

quote:

---

It’s the uniparty.

---

quote:

---

In this case you have a guy who has been on this site for 11 years and rarely ever posts gracing us with his presence to basically tell us he is ok with election fraud and that we shouldn't talk about it.

---

quote:

---

you also think it's a waste of time to even report Election Fraud and that the OP is an idiot for sharing the malfeasance

---

quote:

---

we shouldn't talk about it

---

quote:

---

First, this looks like a typical head fake by Trump to get the media and masses all riled up and tuned in, and then he discusses something else.

---

quote:

---

Key Judgment 1: We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the
voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting
results. We assess that it would be difficult for a foreign actor to manipulate election processes at scale without
detection by intelligence collection on the actors themselves, through physical and cyber security monitoring around
voting systems across the country, or in post-election audits. The IC identified some successful compromises of state
and local government networks prior to Election Day—as well as a higher volume of unsuccessful attempts—that we
assess were not directed at altering election processes. Some foreign actors, such as Iran and Russia, spread false or
inflated claims about alleged compromises of voting systems to undermine public confidence in election processes and
results.

Key Judgment 2: We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government
organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the
Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process,
and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US. Unlike in 2016, we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts
to gain access to election infrastructure. We have high confidence in our assessment; Russian state and proxy actors
who all serve the Kremlin’s interests worked to affect US public perceptions in a consistent manner. A key element of
Moscow’s strategy this election cycle was its use of proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence
narratives—including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden—to US media
organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and
his administration.

Key Judgment 3: We assess that Iran carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut
former President Trump’s reelection prospects—though without directly promoting his rivals—undermine public
confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the
US. We have high confidence in this assessment. We assess that Supreme Leader Khamenei authorized the campaign
and Iran’s military and intelligence services implemented it using overt and covert messaging and cyber operations.

Key Judgment 4: We assess that China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy
influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election. We have high confidence in this
judgment. China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as
being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence tools—
primarily targeted economic measures and lobbying—would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping US China policy
regardless of the winner. The NIO for Cyber assesses, however, that China did take some steps to try to undermine
former President Trump’s reelection.

Key Judgment 5: We assess that a range of additional foreign actors—including Lebanese Hizballah, Cuba, and
Venezuela—took some steps to attempt to influence the election. In general, we assess that they were smaller in scale
than the influence efforts conducted by other actors this election cycle. Cybercriminals disrupted some election
preparations; we judge their activities probably were driven by financial motivations.

Please also see DNI memorandum: Views on Intelligence Community Election Security Analysis, dated January 7,
2021.

---