“There is no evidence of widespread election fraud….”

Written by John (the other John).

We have all been told that “…there is no evidence of widespread election fraud…”, but this statement can be tackled on multiple levels (ex., how do they define “widespread”, and how do they define “fraud” [after all, in electoral warfare, rigging elections is standard practice; hence, it is not “fraud” in their minds because rigging elections is expected; but the Dems are superior with that]). But this goes beyond the scope of this article.

What is key here is that there is no need to prove actual election fraud because it is the election laws & procedures themselves that systemically openly invite fraudulent behavior by their lax security procedures during each step of the process prior to the completed ballots ever arriving at the County Election Office 1 , thus election security must be super tight prior to the election to ensure no fraud. Of note, just observe the limited timeframe for Trump to have had brought a full legal challenge for any violation in the 2020 Presidential election (whether real or alleged):

1. Election day 3 November 2020
2. Mid November to 14 December 2020- States certify results
3. By 8 December 2020, States resolve controversies
4. 14 December 2020, electors vote in their States
5. 23 December 2020- electoral votes arrive in the Senate
6. On or before 3 January 2021, archivist transfers certificates to Congress
7. 6 January 2021- Congress counts electoral votes
8. 20 January 2021- inauguration day

To conduct a State-wide audit (or for multiple States) in this limited timeframe is literally impossible. And as mentioned above, because the fraud occurred before the ballots ever reached the County election Office, AND, because the actual fraud cannot be detected on the actual paper ballots, therefore detecting the fraud is also impossible. Auditing the paper ballot does not show (for example) who completed the ballot, was the ballot signed under duress, nor if any ballots went undelivered (tossed/discarded) due to a ballot harvester having opposing political views.

The envelope does have a designated spot for a 3 rd person to sign if they assisted the voter and/or if they delivered the ballot for the voter, but this portion presumes that if a person committed fraud that they will acknowledge this wrongdoing. An honest fraudster? Really? This system of mail-in ballots perfected election fraud because there is no way to detect fraud absent the fraudster admitting it; and without this admission, then there legitimately is “…no evidence of widespread election fraud…”; this is not due to lack of fraud, but instead due to the lack of proper investigation by the auditors by them looking in the wrong place. The auditing of the paper ballots is nothing more than a false flag to create the illusion of legitimacy, when the fraud actually occurred in the person’s house (or shortly thereafter by a dishonest ballot harvester).

Thus any theoretical legal challenge only satisfies the optics, but there is zero legitimate chance for a credible due process challenge. 2 Because of this systemic (i.e. intentionally strategic) deficiency in fairness and procedural due process for post-election legal challenges, this thus makes it of the utmost importance that fair pre-election and election procedures and laws be enacted so post-election legal challenges would be unnecessary. (This is also why in-person voting with proper residency and identification requirements is paramount).[3]

If the authorities legitimately wanted fair elections, then they would pre-emptively take all steps necessary to prevent both potential fraud and actual fraud from ever occurring; but instead they only act if electoral fraud is proven in Court (which based on the above timeframes, proving fraud is near impossible). So being that it cannot be ensured that fraud will not occur, and being that challenging election results based on this limited timeframe is impossible, by the system allowing such flaws it can be interpreted that they not only invite electoral fraud, BUT more so they demand electoral fraud. 4 (Let us not forget that the Trump lawyers who filed lawsuits for post-election challenges knowing the ridiculously small timeframe available to find supporting evidence of fraud, those lawyers have since been sanctioned and fined due to lack of evidence to make such a legal claim; hence, the challenger has zero legitimate opportunity for real due process).

***

1. *Unsolicited mail-in ballots
- whose hands do they end up in? (are dead people “voting”? does another person “vote” using that unsolicited ballot for somebody who changed residences? [ex., college student voter who changed addresses gets ballot mailed to old address])

- vulnerable/elderly people vote under duress

- who votes on behalf of the vulnerable person (in-person voting in a booth behind a screen without another person in the booth with them is done for the purpose of the person voting of their own freewill without duress)
* ballot harvesting

- discard ballots of people who are suspected of voting for the “wrong” candidate/Party

* same day voter registration

* no long term State residency requirements (which invites carpetbaggers)
* early voting procedures

- a person to “change residence” from Blue State and now register to vote in a Red State, then they early vote; then they “change residence again to another Red State, then early vote; repeat as often as possible prior to Election Day; (there is no national data base to ensure one person-one vote, as opposed to changing residences and voting multiple times)
* no photo ID, or fingerprint, or retina scan requirement, or national database to ensure it is a proper voter
* big tech and media silencing speech of their non-preferred candidate, and ban negative speech of preferred candidate
* Intelligence Agencies covering up for their preferred candidate, and spreading false stories against their non-preferred candidate
* fake Russia hoax
* fake Ukraine hoax
* Covid plandemic (showcasing frozen corpses, and shutdown economy)
* fake empathy for George Floyd (followed by 120+ days of BLM/Antifa pogroms)

2. When a challenge is brought prior to Election Day, Courts have ruled that there is no “ripe” issue because no harm occurred yet. After Election Day, there is no realistic time to audit the ballots.

3. In the 1800’s, there was no privacy when voting. Partisan thugs took people under duress to the polls to cast their votes for their chosen candidates, and they also kept their political adversaries’ voters away with the use of violence. Voting back then could mean life or death, for which 89 people were killed in the mid-1800s when trying to go vote. So a new method of voting was created to limit the power of the Party goons’ vote-buying and fraudulent electoral schemes, which was for people to vote in secret in a private setting so the Party leaders would not know whom the voter voted for. So with them not being able to verify whom the voter voted for, it was thus harder for them to force/bribe people to vote for their candidate.

Unfortunately, today with unsolicited mail-in ballots, we are reverting back to the days of duress voting and bribery.

4. Never mind the violations of the Voting Rights Act (52 USC 10101(b)) when the violent BLM/Antifa pogroms threatened the nation to not vote a certain way; where was the DOJ and FBI to investigate that electoral fraud.

“No person....shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate....”

-

Photo: aulich.com.au