re: Why did 6 swing states stop counting votes?

The election was stolen, possibly like the one from Al Gore in hindsight.

It sucks for all of us from both ends in hindsight.

And Trump was leading in all of them before the fraud dump.

quote:

---

I see it repeated over and over and over, but I don’t remember that happening.

---

You're pretty smart for a two-yr old.

quote:

---

there's an element of corruption when you post this one years after the particulars were examined

---

they were NOT examined

there's an element of corruption when votes "prestaged" turn for one candidate as unbefore characteristically for the Democrat Criminal Biden by obscene percentages

imagine someone supporting the deliberate destruction of the USA using unprecedented election fraud.

Will remember just who you are - FOREVER

quote:

---

A lot of GOP candidates won in those swing states so how do u explain that

---

The question is...How do you explain it?

quote:

---

Imagine still believing these fairy tales after all this time

---

Imagine still believing these are fairy tales after all this time...

Auditing Biden’s ‘Victory’ -
A veteran CPA lays it all out for you.

March 23, 2023 by Bruce Bawer 61 Comments

I’ve never heard of Joseph Fried before, and it was only a few days ago that I became aware of his four-month-old book Debunked: A Professional Auditor Reviews the 2020 Election. But it turns out that this veteran MBA and CPA, who recently retired from his own auditing firm and now writes at Substack, has given us what must surely be the definitive work on the topic. Having “professionally conducted and reviewed hundreds of audits,” he brings his decades of experience in that field to bear on the administration of the 2020 presidential election in each of the six swing states that were awarded to our current dotard-in-chief, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Throughout the book, Fried’s objective is to “analyze the major claims of fraud or irregularity, the credibility of those claims, the available evidence, and the threshold audit standards the states applied, or should have applied, relative to those claims.”

I don’t know the first thing about the work of an auditor. But Fried is a very good teacher. Among much else, he explains that a recount is not an audit – the latter must be performed by independent professionals – and that a mere recount doesn’t preclude the need for an audit. Nor does a court’s ruling on procedural grounds negate an auditor’s findings.

In some cases, an election result cries out for an audit. One test is statistical likelihood. The 2020 election, as it turns out, failed this test spectacularly. A few examples: for almost sixty years, the winner of the electoral votes from Ohio and Florida has also won the nationwide election – but in 2020, no. Since 1898, any candidate winning those two states plus North Carolina has taken the presidency – but, again, not in 2020. For forty years, nineteen bellwether counties around the country have correctly predicted the ultimate winner of the presidential sweepstakes – and who won eighteen of them in 2020? Trump.

There’s more. Not in 150 years has a candidate whose vote total jumped as much as Trump’s did from one election to the next ended up losing the election. Never has any incumbent who received over 75 percent of the votes in his party’s primaries (Trump won 94 percent) lost the general election. Rarely has a president lost a re-election bid even as his party picked up seats in the House. Then there’s the blatantly obvious difference in voter enthusiasm between Trump – with his epic campaign rallies – and Biden, whose events sometimes seemed to draw more journalists than voters. Then there’s what is apparently a suspicious variation in turnout rates between otherwise very similar cities: for example, 84 percent in Milwaukee, but only 51 percent in Cincinnati.

All of it points to the urgent need for a legitimate audit. So do a number of other problems in several widely distributed jurisdictions. For instance, several Democrat-run states, purportedly seeking to make the voting process safer (because of COVID) and easier (especially for minorities, who, it was claimed, somehow had special difficulties in navigating the process), dramatically broadened the use of absentee ballots and relaxed (or entirely removed) ballot signature requirements. Some states even sent out unsolicited ballots to every registered voter. All of these actions were blatant invitations to massive fraud. Republicans who protested were condemned as racist reactionaries – even though most countries in “progressive” Western Europe ban absentee ballots entirely for resident citizens, and those that do allow them are much stricter in distributing them.

Some states hired election workers who weren’t able to operate the computers involved. In many locations, there was large-scale “vote harvesting” – the practice, by political operatives, of going door-to-door to collect voters’ completed absentee ballots and then delivering them (perhaps intact, perhaps not) to the appropriate polling place. And a number of state governments – often at the last minute – made illegal changes in election procedures.

For a responsible auditor, there are other questions to be asked. Were voter logs updated? Were ballot requests logged? Who emptied the drop boxes in which absentee voters deposit their ballots? Who, after the ballots were received, maintained chain of custody? Who had access to the computers used in ballot processing? Where were ballots stored? Who witnessed ballot counts?

After Election Day, there were reports around the country of specific cases of election fraud. A New York Post reporter interviewed a New Jersey Democrat who professed to run a ballot-harvesting operation whose participants collected voters’ completed mail-in ballots, took them out of their envelopes, discarded the ones containing votes for Trump, replaced them with new ballots marked with votes for Biden, then sent them in to be counted. The man running this scheme told the Post reporter that he knew of anti-Trump postal workers who’d thrown out ballots en masse in Trump-friendly neighborhoods.

There were also some abstruse mathematical observations. A mathematician named Edward Solomon noticed unusual patterns in the Georgia and Pennsylvania votes: in some precincts, the total vote and the Trump vote had a much lower percentage of co-primes (i.e., numbers that don’t share a common factor other than one) than would be expected. Some co-prime patterns were oddly repetitious: one Trump vote to 18 for Biden; one Trump vote to 24 for Biden. Solomon found this suspicious. Similarly, scientist Douglas Frank, studying the election results by county in several states, noticed that while the voting pattern by age was pretty much the same in each county of a given state, that pattern differed significantly from state to state. What did that signify? Some observers cited violations in the vote tallies of Benford’s Law, which states that in a large batch of random numbers there will be a certain distribution of their first digits (for example, about 30% of the numbers will begin with 1; 18% with 2; 12% with 3; and so on); but Fried considers this test “too unreliable” to take very seriously.

Then there were the post-election observations whose import could easily be grasped without an advanced math degree. In several swing states there were sudden late-night jumps in voting tallies, all of them massively favoring Biden, and many of them occurring after a mysterious period during which vote counting, or at least vote reporting, stopped. In no fewer than 353 counties in 29 states, there turned out to be more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

Answering a question with a question is a classic way to dodge the original question. BTW, I just read your previous post which is a heaping pile of manure which you should be intimately knowledgeable of if you have anything to do with that second class school you affiliate with.

quote:

---

you are the one who cant figure out the dialogue - specifically what is 'manure'?

---

This the same old shite. A bunch of 'what ifs' and 'might be's' but zero actual evidence of anything.

quote:

---

Do you think someone observing from behind those windows could have observed vote counting going on at the 130 counting tables inside the counting room being used to count votes?

---

Doubtful.

However if you’re going to tell me it was the most transparent and fair election in history or whatever, things like this are very troubling.

What are they attempting to hide or shield ?

Just a simple question. The people outside the rooms can still chant and clap and yell and would disrupt the process anyway.. covering the windows wouldn’t affect that part .

Seems like you’re doing something you don’t want seen.