A lot of people are looking at this backwards because they are fixated on the “Chinese hacking” stuff. It’s not about fake votes injected into the digital vote totals from abroad as much as it is Trump votes removed at the local level by county officials — and then they had to make an equal # of Trump paper ballots disappear.
— Epoch Journalist and blogger, Brian Cates
This quote was was made at the 26:30 minute mark of Patel Patriot live-streaming with Patrick Gunnels as guest as they discuss their takeaway from the AZ Audit Report on Friday, 24 September 2021. Worth your time to watch.
Numbers don’t lie but liars use numbers to create their narrative.
Maricopa County Update: Fake News wants to focus on saying: ‘Maricopa County ended in an anti-climax Friday, with an official report declaring that Joe Biden received more ballots than Donald Trump.’
But, the devil is in the details. What if those accurately counted ballots are fake, just like our puppet media?
Facts: Trump lost 261 ballot votes and Biden got 99 more. Big deal, people can count. We should expect the recount to be similar.
Question: How many ballots were FAKE, or counterfeit, or from DEAD people, or were DOUBLE counted, or from people who VOTED in multiple counties, etc.
ANSWER: At least 5X the slim margin of victory! This should be enough to decertify!
SOLUTION: We need to upgrade our election system, processes, checks and balances and upgrade our Political Leaders! We need people who support true Election Integrity laws. This should be bipartisan but I get the feeling Democrats are trying to undermine the system, not fix it. And the media is either complicit or stupid. So sad for America.
Vote for people who support Election Integrity in 2022!
We need to Fight for our Freedom because Freedom is Far From Free!
— Teora’s Truth to Power! Follow ->@teoratruth https://t.me/teoratruth
This is applicable to Iowa as explained further below, but first, another quote. This time from a report prepared for the Biden Administration last February, 2021, concerning the 2020 election, which was a whitewash. Basically, their advice to the DC Swamp is that there is no there, there.
If you should decide to read it for yourself, notice the irony of the authors describing the telltale signs of obvious election fraud by Putin when juxtaposed by what we witnessed in 2020 right here in the U.S. of A. Or you could skip it and review the critique where those authors take apart the MITRE fallacies.
The MITRE report looked at “5 key areas” of concern:
1. Mail-in ballots requested vs. returned
2. Addresses with more than 20 accepted mail-in ballots
3. Fingerprinting technique analysis
4. Dominion machine irregularities
5. Lost ballots
— Authors: Hyeyon Bastian, Emily Frye, Caroline Gary, Drew Houck, Marc Schneider, Frank Thomason, Brandon Werner https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr-21-0431-data-analytics-to-enhance-election-transparency.pdf
Critique of MITRE Report; the authors expose the sloppy work and highlight where facts and numbers are misrepresented. Keep that in mind when Fake News media cites the MITRE report in trying to debunk the findings of the AZ audit.
1. NORMAL is when approximately 75% requested mail-in ballots are returned.
2. NORMAL is when over 20 mail-in ballots are accepted from one address if they have a “valid excuse” such as being a nursing home.
3. NORMAL is when a 95%-100% vote for any candidate can be taken as prima facia evidence of election malfeasance, and is a keystone of the Klimek fingerprint analysis. Jewish Americans vote typically 80/20 Democrat/Republican. Black Americans vote typically 90/10 Dem/Rep. In 2020, the ratios are said to have moved more to Trump’s favor: 70/30 and 85/15 respectively. The ratio 95/5 is a highly unusual anomaly. .
4. Unexpected spikes in Democrat support indicates someone or an algorithm is flipping votes.
5. It is not suspicious at all if you happen to misplace a large number of ballots. Just call it a computer glitch and go to lunch.
— Contributors: Jared Black, Ray Bleharw, John Droz, Alex Kossovsky, Steve Miller, Eric Quinnell, Michael Sheliga, Stan Young, Et. Al https://election-integrity.info/MITRE_Critique.pdf
Without further ado, let’s dive into Seth Keshel’s and Draza Smith’s analysis of Iowa compiled by Theresa Holmes (https://t.me/GrandTheftElection2020) for Iowa. Theresa has done an excellent job compiling the data and charts for all 50 States in an effort to help people understand the meaning of the data for their individual State.
Slide 1 is what Iowa Representative Sandy Salmon cites as Iowa not needing an audit; “Seth said Iowa is green, so we don’t need an audit. But I do support replacing the machines”. Rep Salmon totally missed the point of Seth’s chart. His probability analysis looks for “ghost” anomalies based on the 2010 census and reported population growth trends to identify problematic counties. It’s nothing more than a “Green, Yellow, Red” scorecard. But Green does not indicate whether a county is 100% good, or 90%. An ATVIA member reports:
I emailed Seth’s assistant and asked her to ask him to put out a statement to Iowans encouraging them to audit our state. I said that his “green” color throughout the state is a reason for Iowans to not take action and I need help talking them into the Audit. (something like that). Here is his response:
Stefanie, I regret to inform you that you are going to have a difficult time finding the political capital to audit Iowa. The trends and registration values match what expected outcomes should be. If I were you and wanted to evaluate further, I’d purchase “voted in 2020” voter rolls in Polk and Dallas Counties and maybe some of those big college counties out east and canvass them. Iowa was 1 point tighter for Trump than in 2016. Reagan also had a tighter margin in reelection. The state was very slightly Dem registration trending.
Again, that is Seth’s honest opinion, statistically speaking according to his metrics. But to the average Iowan, you know and I know Trump had way more support in 2020 than 2016. How to explain that dichotomy? Remember what Brian Cates stated at the top? It’s not that Chyna manipulated the tally, it’s that County Auditors “disappeared” Trump ballots and replaced them with Biden ballots.
How might we identify such replacement ballots? The ballots, if mailed in, might not have fold creases (if you’re in Linn, Blackhawk, Johnson, Polk etc counties and you see unusual night time activity at the county auditor’s office, they might be burning the midnight oil, folding those ballots 😉 ) If some of the ballots appear to have the ovals filled in by a printer, instead of ink or pencil. If some ballots are duplicates of legitimate Biden ballots.
Kinematics and other pattern recognition programs can identify such irregularities. But we’ll never know until we do a full 100% forensic audit. Because a sampled audit, where the County Auditor prepares and submits a controlled batch for “auditing”, which is the trick that Maricopa pulled twice in a vain attempt to stave off a full audit.
Also, I’m not sure if Seth also drilled down to the precinct level from the 2020 Election Results, but some counties have glaring anomalies, from one precinct to the next that can’t simply be attributed to the demographics of the precincts. Rather, it may be attributed to the sticky fingers of the precinct poll workers. I believe there has to be poll-watchers who witnessed some of their shenanigans. Like being pushed out and away from getting a good look, similar to what happened in GA, MI, PA and others. If such was brought to the attention of SOS Paul Pate, what has he done about it? Then there’s the matter of him hosting NASS last month.
Slide 2 is self explanatory.
Take a look at some of the Population Growth vs Growth in new Registered Voters and corresponding shifts.
Slide 4 is self explanatory
Enter Draza. Draza uses the New York Times’ election feed data which provided near-real-time data. Why? because the JSON files contains the entire history of the election from start to finish, one file for each of all 50 States, plus DC and the territories, complete with vote tallies and timestamps. This is the “magic” that allows NYT to post dynamic results as the hours and minutes tick by with updates. It’s the same method used by news channels and other news outlets to automatically show updates.
Iowa’s history is contained in this file: https://static01.nyt.com/elections-assets/2020/data/api/2020-11-03/race-page/iowa/president.json. If you’re curious, you can click on the link and when the page opens, click on the “Expand All” button.
The utility of a JSON file is you can create any kind of display by referencing each data field by their ID. What Draza did was plot the Biden vs Trump votes at each timestamp increment. The charts then show the blips and bumps as time marches on. Grand Theft Election Part Two on page 6 and 7 show what the data looks like, complete with timestamps
And it is in the next chart below for Iowa where Draza captures Biden actually exceeding 100% of his total vote tally before quickly coming back down to reality. In the real world, no one, NO ONE ever, exceeds the 100% line at which all votes have been tabulated.
Understand that this is a double-axis chart. The total result was 759,061 for Biden vs 897,672 for Trump. The left vertical axis is Biden’s votes counted percentage from 0% to 100% and on the right is Trump’s. The “reported total” of all votes cast for President was 1,690,871
What you’re seeing with that jump over 100%, approximately 101.7% is that for a brief time, the JSON was reporting that Biden had approximately 771,965.
The PID had targeted for Biden to win, but because Iowa wasn’t a “must win for Biden” State, it wasn’t worth the effort and risk to have perhaps Linn, Scott and other corrupted Auditors shut down for the night and make up the difference. So adjustments were made to realign Biden back down to his alleged vote tally of 759,061.
Because when the votes are being tabulated, they use “fractional voting”, in which the vote tally is driven by a preset percentage win. In other words, take the total votes of all candidates in the race counted so far, and break them down by the predetermined percentage. That process give you a fraction during tabulation — i.e. , 53.1% of 1,690,871 is 897,852.501 (not the same as Trump’s end result) — before the results are rounded, cleaned up and presented as a whole number.
The PID (download Part 1 and Part 2 here) uses a 6th order polynomial that factor in basic demographics, census data and election results from 2012 & 2016 to project a desired outcome for 2020. It uses that to ideally make a smooth arc towards the win. Like a car’s cruise control that gently speeds up when going uphill and coasts downhill to maintain a steady 75mph on the freeway. That way, no one would notice anything out of whack except for the media to gloat, “Texas is slowly trending blue”.
Think about that? How many times have you heard such and such state is turning purple or blue? The fraud has been around for a long, long time, with each race, slowly shifting the fraud towards the blue then telling us, “Yup, demographics are against the republicans.”
And the RINOs suck it up as gospel truth. Either they are gullible or they are complicit. Can you imagine? What if California, Washington and Oregon are really red/independent in terms of a majority of the electorate, but the cheating has been going on for over 2 decades that we actually believe they are blue states?
Now most of you, including Iowa Representative Sandy Salmon and Iowa Senator Jim Carlin, saw what Mike Lindell called the “Big Lie” on the third day of the symposium. According to Mike’s PCAPs, which could only have been captured by NSA/Space Force, the truth is that Trump actually earned 967,311 votes and Biden only got 689,422.
And U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley is emphatically convinced that Mike — a born again Christian who gave up a life of cocaine and crack, and turned it all over to Christ — is a liar. My question to him is how does he know that what Mike reported is false? Enquiring minds want to know.
Slide 7 is self explanatory
You must log in to post a comment.