2020 US Election Voter Irregularities – Evidence or No Evidence

[UnoiAmarah]

Election Fraud? Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania Cast By Voters Over 220 Years Old

It was pointed out to me that the LORD said from the beginning that the number of days of man in the flesh on earth shall be 120 years so if ballots were cast by persons over 120 years of age then why would that be any indication of fraud by someone who believes that men have lived longer than a 120 years of age in the past?

Are you sure that there were mail-in ballots cast by registered voters over 220 years of age?

 

[UnoiAmarah]

@ Solemateleft

I realize that the statement of voters being over 220 years old was the title to the article you linked it to, which some might not have noticed by the colorization of the link, but you didn't refute it either... just saying.

Are you sure that there were mail-in ballots cast by registered voters over 220 years of age?

https://data.pa.gov/Government-Effi...n-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

In actuality, the date of 1800 is assigned to victims of domestic abuse according to the footnotes of the webpage.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

@calibob

Do you have a reason for disagreeing ?

 

[kaylagrl]

I was irregular yesterday but I drank some metamucil

TMI

 

[calibob]

It was pointed out to me that the LORD said from the beginning that the number of days of man in the flesh on earth shall be 120 years so if ballots were cast by persons over 120 years of age then why would that be any indication of fraud by someone who believes that men have lived longer than a 120 years of age in the past?

Are you sure that there were mail-in ballots cast by registered voters over 220 years of age?

I just tried 3 times and @patriotforrights could not be found! Quit posting spam or I will turn you in. I've done it before and some people got banned.

 

[calibob]

@calibob

Do you have a reason for disagreeing ?

I've been trying to fact check by entering the name on the letterhead that was provided and the answer 3 times was; 'no results found.'

I don't believe every cock and bull story I see or hear either!

 

[Solemateleft]

@ Solemateleft

I realize that the statement of voters being over 220 years old was the title to the article you linked it to, which some might not have noticed by the colorization of the link, but you didn't refute it either... just saying.



https://data.pa.gov/Government-Effi...n-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/data

In actuality, the date of 1800 is assigned to victims of domestic abuse according to the footnotes of the webpage.

Thanks for pointing this out, I will look into it tomorrow... I will also be posting more statistical anomalies that seem to be growing every day...

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Thanks for pointing this out, I will look into it tomorrow... I will also be posting more statistical anomalies that seem to be growing every day...

The thing is, statistic anomalies mean squat, statistic anomalies have nothing to do with the decision made by the Supreme Court back in July which prohibits an Elector, such as those in these states where the voting process is allegedly been compromised from following the discretion vested in them by the Constitution as Electors when casting their vote on Dec. 14, 2020

In fact, the Justice who wrote the decision gave it away when she said that the Elector who is appointed by the State is required by the Constitution to vote how they are told to vote, when in fact it doesn't say anything to that effect. So it appears that when you are appointed to the Supreme Court you will vote on issues before the Court as you are told to vote by the powers that be that appointed you.

So why did they cast their votes, was it because they observed violations in the voting process in the jurisdiction where they appointed as Electors and exercised their discretion the Consitution provided them as Electors to cast their votes in the manner they saw fit, even if it nullifies their votes?

But with the supreme Court's decision in July that ruled the Electors had no discretionary right under the U.S. Constitution to vote for the President and Vice President except as they are told to vote, then there isn't a darn thing you can do but sit back and wait on the death panels to begin gathering out the Republic all of the beelievers

 

[Solemateleft]

The thing is, statistic anomalies mean squat, statistic anomalies have nothing to do with the decision made by the Supreme Court back in July which prohibits an Elector, such as those in these states where the voting process is allegedly been compromised from following the discretion vested in them by the Constitution as Electors when casting their vote on Dec. 14, 2020

In fact, the Justice who wrote the decision gave it away when she said that the Elector who is appointed by the State is required by the Constitution to vote how they are told to vote, when in fact it doesn't say anything to that effect. So it appears that when you are appointed to the Supreme Court you will vote on issues before the Court as you are told to vote by the powers that be that appointed you.

So why did they cast their votes, was it because they observed violations in the voting process in the jurisdiction where they appointed as Electors and exercised their discretion the Consitution provided them as Electors to cast their votes in the manner they saw fit, even if it nullifies their votes?

But with the supreme Court's decision in July that ruled the Electors had no discretionary right under the U.S. Constitution to vote for the President and Vice President except as they are told to vote, then there isn't a darn thing you can do but sit back and wait on the death panels to begin gathering out the Republic all of the beelievers

Looks like the makings of another good thread topic here, so I just posted this new topic 'Election Legal Process - the Constitution – and What Happens IF a STATE IS UNABLE to CERTIFY it’s RESULTS?’ please keep an I out for it...

First, I happen to be an Operations Research Analyst (read: Statistical Nerd) for DoD so I concede that my response is likely biased based upon where I sit... Point being - I am not a Constitutional nor Election Litigation Lawyer... But I do watch 'The Warroom' on Newsmax to have an appreciation for the bigger strategic picture going on here.

So in DoD Statistical Rigor and Analysis is precisely the means to analytically defend, verify, validate and justify the Defense Budget interests and equities by analyzing RISK and consequences - believe it or not - in an attempt to Mitigate Risks and Threats before they happen...

IMHO From a Big Picture stand-point ALL the Left and Right posturing going on right now is merely both sides striving to Win AND Avoid a Civil Unrest/War...

The generalized approach that you cite is certainly accurate – with the underlying assumption that each State’s election results are deemed CERTIFIABLE… If enough State’s election results are deemed UN-CERTIFIABLE than the Constitutional Election process becomes a bit different than the historic norms that we have come to understand – as it pertains to the Electoral College…

In this case the Data Science and Statistical Analyses can serve to ensure a COMPLETE AUDIT of the respective States in question; where a RECOUNT would merely RECOUNT the potentially flawed data on hand… A COMPLETE AUDIT has the ability to expose the VERACITY of the respective State Elections.

In our lifetimes much of the Constitutional Election legal bureaucracy is resolved in the 1st Quarter of the Game (sports analogy) as the majority of time the candidate that comes up on the losing end of the Electoral College results CONCEDES DEFEAT… This is HUGE from a legal processing standpoint… Think of it as the difference between a Civil Divorce VS a Contested Divorce (where cheating is involved)… Because it is only in the Contested Divorce where Discovery becomes a factor…

Most people do not understand the Constitutional Election Process if and when the Electoral College is unable to certify that either candidate has obtained 270 Electoral College Votes… If the Electoral College is unable to Certify a Valid Winner it goes to the Supreme Court (2nd Quarter)…

If the Supreme Court is unable to resolve an outcome on the same grounds that States are unable to Certify their respective State Election Results – than it goes back to Congress (3rd Quarter)…

This is where it gets interesting because the Constitutional Law specifies that each State Delegation will decide the vote for their respective States based upon the respective majority of state representatives for each given State… Currently the Republicans own 30 state delegates and Democrats own 20 states.

4th Quarter – if it comes to it – The Constitutional Process would re-elect President Trump as a result of the legal process – based upon the Statistical Evidence provided proving that X number of States were unable to Certify the Integrity of their Election Results.

Statistical Evidence is an ESSENTIAL means to demonstrate TRANSPARENCY regardless of the outcome to Mitigate Civil Unrest/War…

If the Left is declared the Winner without Statistical/Analytically Defensibility of the State Elections in question – the extreme RIGHT is unlikely to take this news lightly… At best will lead to lack of trust in the integrity of our democracy for the foreseeable future, at worst Leads to Civil Unrest…

If the Right is declared the Winner without Statistical/Analytically Defensibility of the allegations of wrong-doing – the Left will RIOT and BURN our CITIES…

 

[Solemateleft]

Statistical proof of election fraud in the US

https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/11/07/statistical-proof-of-election-fraud-in-the-us/

For people who are wondering how it is possible to tell when vote counting is fraudulent here is one way. Using Benford’s law, one can tell whether the distribution of numbers from, for example, precinct candidate vote-total reports are random or fraudulent in nature. The way Benford’s law works is you take a bunch of numbers, for example deposit amounts that a business has recorded over the course of year, and for each of those amounts you record the first digit of the deposit.

So if a deposit on a particular day was in the amount of $1,234.56, you would record the ‘1’. You then do that for every other number in your dataset and Benford’s law holds that if the deposit amounts are truly random, the number ‘1’ will be most common, followed by ‘2’ and then ‘3’ and so on with ‘9’ being the least likely.

You’ll then be able to plot this on a graph so there is a sloping curve to the dataset. On the other hand, if the dataset has fraudulent numbers, you’ll end up with weird results like the number ‘4’ being most common or the number ‘8’.

The IRS uses this mathematical law to detect fraud in tax returns and/or the supporting documents that are filed with them, as well as by accounting firms that are auditing their clients’ books and records.

Take a gander below at what Biden’s vote counts look like in Chicago and Milwaukee and Allegheny, PA. I think the results speak for themselves, but suffice it to say, all the candidates vote counts look normal except for Biden’s:

 

[Solemateleft]

More Anomalies In Late Vote Additions In Pennsylvania
BY BRIGGS ON NOVEMBER 9, 2020 • ( 40 COMMENTS )

https://wmbriggs.com/post/33400/

Anyway, yesterday’s demonstration that three separate counties removed about 10,000 votes from Trump Wednesday evening, and the late Friday addition of about 27,000 votes for Biden, after a point at which it was plain about this many would be needed to push Biden ahead, is in my mind the best indication something untoward happened in PA. At the very least, the removal of Trump’s votes needs to be answered.

Here’s a picture showing the indexed, low to high, vote additions for each time they happened: there were over 200 of these additions. For instance, at one point (the right-most line) about 45,000 votes were added for Biden; and at the same time about 16,500 for Trump. Those cases where Biden got more votes than Trump are blue. When Trump got more the lines are red.

 

[Solemateleft]

Statistical proof of election fraud in the US

https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/11/07/statistical-proof-of-election-fraud-in-the-us/

For people who are wondering how it is possible to tell when vote counting is fraudulent here is one way. Using Benford’s law, one can tell whether the distribution of numbers from, for example, precinct candidate vote-total reports are random or fraudulent in nature. The way Benford’s law works is you take a bunch of numbers, for example deposit amounts that a business has recorded over the course of year, and for each of those amounts you record the first digit of the deposit.

So if a deposit on a particular day was in the amount of $1,234.56, you would record the ‘1’. You then do that for every other number in your dataset and Benford’s law holds that if the deposit amounts are truly random, the number ‘1’ will be most common, followed by ‘2’ and then ‘3’ and so on with ‘9’ being the least likely.

You’ll then be able to plot this on a graph so there is a sloping curve to the dataset. On the other hand, if the dataset has fraudulent numbers, you’ll end up with weird results like the number ‘4’ being most common or the number ‘8’.

The IRS uses this mathematical law to detect fraud in tax returns and/or the supporting documents that are filed with them, as well as by accounting firms that are auditing their clients’ books and records.

Take a gander below at what Biden’s vote counts look like in Chicago and Milwaukee and Allegheny, PA. I think the results speak for themselves, but suffice it to say, all the candidates vote counts look normal except for Biden’s:

 

[Solemateleft]

Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA: ONE CURIOSITY SOLVED: BAD DATA ENTRY
BY BRIGGS ON NOVEMBER 8, 2020 • ( 97 COMMENTS )

https://wmbriggs.com/post/33377/


Here is the figure with the corrected data:

 

[Solemateleft]

One Milwaukee Ballot Curiosity & One New Theoretical Voter Fraud Tool
BY BRIGGS ON NOVEMBER 12, 2020 • ( 22 COMMENTS )

https://wmbriggs.com/post/33472/

Seven wards stick out as curious in 2020, which are listed on the figure. These represent 12,093 total votes in Biden’s favor, whereas in 2016 those same wards were only 120 votes in Hillary’s favor, and even one ward that went Trump’s way. All wards therefore represent large increases for Biden over Hillary.

Now 12 thousand votes is a lot, so the suggestion is to examine these wards more closely.

This is, I emphasize, not proof of fraud. But they are amazing jumps: a lot higher than the 4% increase in total votes would predict.

 

[Solemateleft]

One Milwaukee Ballot Curiosity & One New Theoretical Voter Fraud Tool
BY BRIGGS ON NOVEMBER 12, 2020 • ( 22 COMMENTS )

https://wmbriggs.com/post/33472/

Seven wards stick out as curious in 2020, which are listed on the figure. These represent 12,093 total votes in Biden’s favor, whereas in 2016 those same wards were only 120 votes in Hillary’s favor, and even one ward that went Trump’s way. All wards therefore represent large increases for Biden over Hillary.

Now 12 thousand votes is a lot, so the suggestion is to examine these wards more closely.

This is, I emphasize, not proof of fraud. But they are amazing jumps: a lot higher than the 4% increase in total votes would predict.
View attachment 222704

In Michigan we have the following statistics of the number of votes cast for President and those, on the same physical ballot, for Supreme court:

2016
Supreme court winner votes = 2,316,459
Presidential winner votes = 2,279,543

2020
Supreme court winner votes = 2,369,012
Presidential winner votes = 2,790,648

In 2016, 98.4% of ballots had marking for both offices, showing a true civic spirit. But in 2020, only 84.9% of the ballots had markings for both offices, and there was also a distinct increase in the number of votes. In Michigan, because of the coronadoom, there were a gargantuan number of mail-in ballots sent out. We await the final numbers. The Secretary of State’s site does not yet have 2020 data posted.

In other words, it could be that in 2020 all 2,790,648 ballots had only one position marked. We can calculate the probability of this, assuming nothing other than the 2016 data and that there are only two possibilities, that the ballot has two markings or one. The math suggests the prediction of both positions marked is a beta-binomial distribution over the numbers 0, 1, …, 2,790,648 (see this marvelous book or this page for why).

If we do that, we get this picture of the probability of every possibility, from 0 to 2,790,648.


The spike to the right predicts we’d most likely see that many ballots with both positions filled out. The red vertical line shows the actual number of matching ballots.

The prediction was that we’d most likely see 2.74 and 2.75 million matching ballots. We saw 2.37 million.

The prediction was, of course, conditional on the old data, but it was also conditional on the assumption that people’s behavior would be the same. It clearly was not.

One possible change in behavior is an increase in cheating, i.e. ballot stuffing with Biden-only ballots (assuming the data is real!). There are, naturally, many other explanations besides this, such as marked disinterest in the Supreme court in 2020. Plus, we only looked at two ballot positions, when we could look at others, too.

 

[Solemateleft]

CORTES: The Statistical Case Against Biden’s Win

NOVEMBER 9, 2020​

STEVE CORTES​

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/case-against-biden-win/

1. TURNOUT

For Wisconsin overall, the turnout was above 90% of registered voters. Even in a state with same-day registration, such a number seems implausible.

Even more importantly, looking within the Wisconsin vote, the decisive locale for Biden was, unsurprisingly, Milwaukee. Wisconsin’s largest city reported an 84% turnout to secure a 145,916 vote lead there for Biden.

Consider a comparison to another very similar Midwestern city, Cleveland, OH. Milwaukee has a population of 590,000, 67% of them minorities. Cleveland has 381,000 people with 60% of them minorities.

But Milwaukee’s 84% turnout dwarfs Cleveland’s more believable 51% turnout rate.

2. OUTPERFORMANCE VS. OBAMA

The breakouts higher for Biden relative to Obama’s performances in key areas simply do not seem credible.

Could a candidate as doddering and lazy as Biden really have massively outpaced the vote totals of a politician who boasted rock star appeal?

For example, consider that in key Pennsylvania counties of Chester, Cumberland, and Montgomery, Biden bested the Obama election performances by factors of 1.24-1.43 times. For Montgomery County, Obama won this swing county by 59,000 votes in his 2012 re-election.

But in 2020, Biden won Montgomery County by a whopping 131,000 votes, more than twice the prior Obama margin.

Biden’s 2020 total vote in Montgomery is reported at 313,000, crushing Obama’s 233,000 take in 2012 – and population growth does not explain the gains, as the county only grew by 22,000 residents during those eight years.

Such eye-popping outperformance vs.Obama, in just the right places, naturally raises a lot of suspicion.

3. Biden-Only Ballots

over 450,000 Biden-only ballots were cast, meaning the voter allegedly selected Biden but then neglected down-ballot candidates, including closely-contested Senate and House races.

Again, this phenomenon appears far more prominently in battleground states, raising the alarm for manipulation.

In the Peach State, President Trump’s vote total almost exactly tracked the vote totals for the Republican senate candidates, separated by merely 818 votes out of 2.43 million votes Trump earned there. But, Joe Biden saw an astounding surplus of 95,801 votes over the Democratic Senate candidates.

4. ABSENCE OF MAIL-IN VOTE VETTING

Democratic governors clamored for massive amounts of mail-in voting, knowing full well that most states would become overwhelmed and wholly unable to establish the validity and legality of almost all the votes that poured in via mail.

By their own admission, the scant 0.03% of rejected ballots represents a refusal rate that is just 1/30th the level of 2016 in Pennsylvania.

First-time mail-in voters typically see a rejection rate of about 3% historically, or 100 times the rejection rate of Pennsylvania in 2020.

When neighboring New York state moved to widespread mail-in voting this summer, their election officials rejected 21% of mailed ballots in June, representing a rate 700 times higher than Pennsylvania’s.

This total lack of filtering or controls raises enormous suspicion regarding a seriously-tainted ballot pool in the Keystone State.

RIGGED?

The statistical case, in isolation, does not prove fraud. But the confluence of highly unlikely results does, emphatically, paint of picture of utter improbability.

Any one of these four factors alone would cast intense doubt upon election results.

Put all four together, and the result is a seemingly impossible statistical perfect storm.

To use a sports analogy, it would be a team pitching a perfect game in the World Series.

Not one game, nor two…but in all four games to “sweep” via pitching perfection.

 

[Solemateleft]

‘Hammer’ and ‘Scorecard’: Lt. Gen. McInerney explains the election hack by Democrats. By JD Rucker.
https://wentworthreport.com/2020/11...rney-explains-the-election-hack-by-democrats/

The Democrats are either cheating or powers above them are cheating on their behalf. Either way, the election is in the process of being stolen if we’re to believe Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney during his most recent interview with Two Mikes.

The General described “Hammer” and “Scorecard,” a pair of programs initially designed for the CIA before being privatized by Deep State players from the Obama administration. We explained how they work in an article last week, but the gist is this:

“Hammer” or “THE HAMMER” is a counter-intelligence surveillance program used to spy on activities on protected networks (like voting machines) without detection …

“Scorecard” is a vote-manipulation application that changes votes during transfer. It’s the least detectable form of election manipulation because it works during data transfer between voting stations and data storage hubs. Unless both sides are looking for irregularities, it’s impossible to catch. If nefarious forces had people on one side or the other (or both) during data transfer, it cannot be exposed. …

What we’re seeing happening in Michigan and Wisconsin have all of the trademarks of a “Hammer” and “Scorecard” operation.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney exposes ‘Scorecard,’ the Democrats’ voter fraud superweapon. by Scott Boyd.

Voter fraud is happening right now. We all know it; one would be hard pressed to find a single American on either side of the aisle who would not acknowledge that it’s taking place. Around half the country realizes (or is willing to admit) it’s happening in favor of Democrats, but very few realize just how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. …

A CIA program known as “Scorecard” allows its users to change voting outcomes by hacking into the transfer between local reporting stations and state or national data centers.

According to McInerney, it’s a small amount, under 3%, to keep it from triggering any alarms. He would know. He served in top military positions under the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President of the United States.

Using software for elections is a grave error, if you want a honest and reliable count. Paper ballots filled in under supervision at a polling place after an ID check are relatively secure and can be recounted.

UPDATE: Sidney Powell discusses Hammer and Scorecard with Lou Dobbs here. Explosive.

UPDATE 12 Nov: Scorecard probably works via the “weighted race” feature of vote counting by computers, which allows fractional votes to be transferred from one candidate to another. See Michigan: MIT PhD Shows Trump’s Margin Was Reduced by 138,000 Votes in Just Four Counties by a Counting Computer with the “Weighted Race” Feature Turned On, which Transferred Votes from Trump to Biden!

 

[Solemateleft]

ANALYSIS: 10,000 Dead People Voted in Michigan Using Mail-in Ballots
Validating what the President insisted would be the case throughout the election, fraudsters have used mail-in ballots to skew the election
https://nationalfile.com/analysis-10000-dead-people-voted-in-michigan-using-mail-in-ballots/

About 9,500 voters who were confirmed dead through the Social Security Death Index are marked in Michigan’s database as having returned mail-in ballots. Another roughly 2,000 are registered as being 100 years old or more.

The Trump campaign has litigation outstanding against the State of Michigan alleging election malfeasance.

 

[ChoirLoft]

2020 has lived up to being the CHAOTIC year all the way to the end… Who would have ever imagined that censorship, divisiveness and chaos would ever become so prevalent in the US?

So RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/) has just withdrawn Biden’s win in PA as a Blue state to an Undecided state bringing their Electoral tally to 259-214. This comes on the heals of AG Barr authorizing federal prosecutors across the US to pursue “substantiating allegations” of voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election is certified…

Just as the LEFT, Main-Stream Media and Social Media (MSM/SM) censored Doctors and Nurses opposing views of skewed CV19 recorded case counts; and LEFT MSM/SM censorship of Violent Riots as Peaceful demonstrations. Overt attempts to convince people Not to believe their own eyes and ears!

They now want everyone to believe that there is NO EVIDENCE of VOTING FRAUD in the 2020 election…

The Integrity of US Democracy is at stack for the foreseeable future… Many on the Right are concerned that if we are unable to resolve trust and confidence in our election system now that the Republicans will never win another Presidential election as laws will be created to enable and protect such shenanigans.

This post is intended to provide an opportunity for members to offer any claims of voter irregularities that have been substantiated via Eye-Witness claims, affidavits, interviews, photos, videos or otherwise. With the premise that where there is smoke there is fire…

Here is a list of Voting Irregularities that have been reported on Fox News, One American Network, or MediaMax… Regret I did not include links or references – I will try to circle back – feel free to provide if you have a source for any of these claims…

What are the irregularities that you have read about, seen in the news or seen on the internet? If you could site the source that would be appreciated…

• PA Governance changed State voting Laws without Legislation approval.
• Philadelphia Election Observers were forced to stand 30’-100’ away from vote counting. Giuliani claims that over 450,000 votes were un-observed and fraudulent.
• PA Postal worker was directed to back date ballot envelops by his employer.
• 23,000 blue ballots appeared over-night and found in PA;
• 450,000 ballots only voted for Biden and no other items on the ballot…
• MI -Republican Poll Challengers were removed from Detroit Election Stations for large periods of time.
• MI – a county in Michigan identified a Dominion software glitch that resulted in changing 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden. The same Dominion software is used in 47 other polling locations in Michigan and 30 other states.
• 135,000 blue ballots appeared over-night via a van and found in Detroit MI where Poll Observers were not allowed back into the room…
• NV – witnesses claim that 1000 votes were filled out at one time at a Biden/Harris van outside an election station.
• NV – Las Vegas Election Observers were asked to leave with 1 ½ hours of work left to do on day one of the election.
• AZ – had a sharpie scandal where in several election locations voters were handed sharpies (that their website says should not be used as they bleed thru)…
• AZ - Maricopa county reports that substantial number of votes were wrongly rejected.

Documented list of Voter Fraud in US by Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Internet rumor does not qualify as evidence.

If anyone believes they have evidence to support the assertion the election was invalid, then they ought to present that evidence to authorities for examination. Otherwise, shut up about it.

In 2016, when the Democrats lost to Trump THEY claimed the same thing - that Russia acted in ways to subvert the election. No evidence was ever produced to support THAT theory either.

Don't you get it?

Republicans and Democrats, two heads of the same snake, deliberately accuse the other of tampering with elections when they lose.

You're being played, people. We are being manipulated by whatever party wants to win an election by false claims of fraud. The only fraud here is the vomitus being spewed upon us.

Trump won in 2016. Trump lost in 2020. The whole thing was legal and sufficient to support the process.

Get over it or continue to be a puppet and allow yourselves to be manipulated by the power hungry thieves in Washington, DC.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

PS
I voted for Jo Jorgensen. I am a registered Libertarian.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

If anyone believes they have evidence to support the assertion the election was invalid, then they ought to present that evidence to authorities for examination. Otherwise, shut up about it.

By invalid do you mean an election where the votes were systematically cast out or not counted for a person that voters wanted to elect as their President?

George Washington foretold the event that would tell Americans that the people have become unfit to govern themselves and worthy of a master it should be of no consequence who is selected.

Otherwise, shut up about it.

Well, they might try to find out what George Washington said so that they can be safe and sound.