Back in August we were somewhat baffled when FBI Director Chris Wray unexpectedly appeared to break ranks with the official DC narrative about an “insurrection” on January 6, 2020.
As I often say... How much more of this are Americans expected to take before they are finally allowed to call shenanigans and put fourth actual change?
< There may well be more here -- but what's been discovered thus far and proved, (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:
1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was *not conducted* in accordance with Federal Law.
2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are *not able* to be confirmed, since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes, it is impossible to identify them.
Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist. We now *know more than 17,000* in fact do exist, and the envelopes still exist. What we cannot prove one way or another is, whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted. We thus have *no way to know* who won.
3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis, about the equipment *never being* connected to the Internet.
4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election, in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that *destruction, and identification* of the person who did so.
This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.
5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was *not recoverable*, and likely is not recoverable.
By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was *falsely* certified.
What's the remedy for this?
That's a separate debate -- but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that, at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was, is not *subject to reasonable* dispute.
Finally, not only was their *forensic computer* person credible, he displayed *exactly* the process that I, as a person skilled in the art, and who has *performed computer* forensics, would utilize...."
< I helped with the last election in Canada, and so I can tell you the process we used:.... >
(After listing A,B,C,D, and E specs of Canadian procedures, he ends with:
< f) Any violation of any of the above risks voiding the election results if anyone catches it, and since literally anyone is permitted to watch if they want, there's a very good chance someone will catch any and all irregularities.
This is a fairly secure process, allows results to be posted at a reasonable hour, and works reasonably well in practice. Having been involved in the process as a rep for the PPC..., I feel comfortable to say that this process keeps fraud well controlled.
Frankly, I rather suspect that the problems in the US are because your politicians like fraud. Given how straightforward it is to set up a good system, and that literally right next door we have one, I can't think of any other reasons why the US would stick with such a poorly managed and easily rigged system... >
I think Wray's statement was predominantly motivated by the fear of implanted black-clad FBI agent-provocateurs being called to the witness stand. Not all of them will be willing to lie under oath.
The indomitable Julie Kelly, who has been working and writing hard on behalf of those arrested re January 6, has a great article at American Greatness. It seems the New York Times outed the fact that there were FBI informants among the Proud Boys…. Great article:
"...mysterious black-clad figures gaining entry to the Capitol through high placed windows, dropping down, and opening the doors to demonstrators ...". Let's see if we can reason this out. There were black-clad figures operating on what appears in the surface like a "coordinated plan" that let demonstrators in to the capitol. The FBI informant on the scene reports " no discernible coordination". Remind me again why we're not supposed to see the Ashlii Babbitt shooting as the staged event it was? Or are we all going to have to wait for it to all come out in Durham-like fashion 5 or 6 years after the fact?
As I often say... How much more of this are Americans expected to take before they are finally allowed to call shenanigans and put fourth actual change?
Denninger today, "On Maricopa...":
< There may well be more here -- but what's been discovered thus far and proved, (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:
1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was *not conducted* in accordance with Federal Law.
2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are *not able* to be confirmed, since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes, it is impossible to identify them.
Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist. We now *know more than 17,000* in fact do exist, and the envelopes still exist. What we cannot prove one way or another is, whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted. We thus have *no way to know* who won.
3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis, about the equipment *never being* connected to the Internet.
4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election, in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that *destruction, and identification* of the person who did so.
This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.
5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was *not recoverable*, and likely is not recoverable.
By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was *falsely* certified.
What's the remedy for this?
That's a separate debate -- but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that, at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was, is not *subject to reasonable* dispute.
Finally, not only was their *forensic computer* person credible, he displayed *exactly* the process that I, as a person skilled in the art, and who has *performed computer* forensics, would utilize...."
And, at https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3712979 , reader Kevin_j writes:
< I helped with the last election in Canada, and so I can tell you the process we used:.... >
(After listing A,B,C,D, and E specs of Canadian procedures, he ends with:
< f) Any violation of any of the above risks voiding the election results if anyone catches it, and since literally anyone is permitted to watch if they want, there's a very good chance someone will catch any and all irregularities.
This is a fairly secure process, allows results to be posted at a reasonable hour, and works reasonably well in practice. Having been involved in the process as a rep for the PPC..., I feel comfortable to say that this process keeps fraud well controlled.
Frankly, I rather suspect that the problems in the US are because your politicians like fraud. Given how straightforward it is to set up a good system, and that literally right next door we have one, I can't think of any other reasons why the US would stick with such a poorly managed and easily rigged system... >
Which makes Voegelin's point over at All The Crazy People. Canada is a hot mess, as is Australia. People vote for that.
Quite the opposite. The fraud is so rampant and so easily done that it's quite likely that the People did NOT vote for any of this. Voting is a sham.
I think Wray's statement was predominantly motivated by the fear of implanted black-clad FBI agent-provocateurs being called to the witness stand. Not all of them will be willing to lie under oath.
The indomitable Julie Kelly, who has been working and writing hard on behalf of those arrested re January 6, has a great article at American Greatness. It seems the New York Times outed the fact that there were FBI informants among the Proud Boys…. Great article:
https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/25/times-reveals-fbi-role-in-january-6/
"...mysterious black-clad figures gaining entry to the Capitol through high placed windows, dropping down, and opening the doors to demonstrators ...". Let's see if we can reason this out. There were black-clad figures operating on what appears in the surface like a "coordinated plan" that let demonstrators in to the capitol. The FBI informant on the scene reports " no discernible coordination". Remind me again why we're not supposed to see the Ashlii Babbitt shooting as the staged event it was? Or are we all going to have to wait for it to all come out in Durham-like fashion 5 or 6 years after the fact?
Like the Titanic trying to distance itself from the iceberg?