For those who held out hope for the Democrats to show courage and do what is right, the reality is now apparent, and the disappointment is palpable.
After calling us to fight—because “When we fight, we win!”—the people who called us walked away, unwilling to fight.
They mustered not an ounce of bravery—not for themselves, the American people, or, most critically, their voters.
So, what was the purpose of that slogan?
It is deeply frustrating to continually watch the Democratic Party fail to stand against Trump and the G.O.P. Their inaction and endless passivity are not just disappointing; they are disillusioning.
The same is true for the media, which also played a significant role in this debacle and failed to adequately address the issue.
We are witnessing America’s demise led by a cruel, seditious, traitorous despot and his morally deficient master manipulator and conman, and Democrats still think it’s business as usual.
They are woefully unprepared without a counterattack against a depraved dictator who controls America again.
The situation could not be more urgent.
Knowing he cheated in 2016 and again in 2020, does anyone think he didn’t cheat in 2024, fearful that the American voters might determine his fate of going to prison?
Are we honestly pretending that he wouldn’t be desperate enough to force the outcome?
What the hell were they thinking?
At the very least, VP Harris could have easily demanded hand recounts and forensic audits. Democrats could have raised their voices, examined the results, and, if necessary, begun a thorough investigation.
But they didn’t.
They did none of that.
Perhaps A Request From VP Harris Could’ve Charted A New Course For This Country
“Why didn’t she request a hand recount or forensic audit?”
Why would she not pursue something she knew would be extremely dangerous and detrimental to this country?
And what happened to the rest of the Democrats in leadership?
It’s hard to fathom that if they hadn’t ignored what occurred, and the media hadn’t been so frightened of Trump’s wrath to address it, they might have been able to prevent the bogus certification of a convicted felon.
If so, we would be facing a different situation right now instead of being on the verge of losing our democracy.
But that is not the case.
Many who watched the certification process are still reeling from Democrats’ complicity and refusal to challenge the results. Their response has been abysmal.
Considering the number of cyber analysts who examined the data and identified voting manipulations, gathering everything needed to contest the outcome would have been uncomplicated.
Here are a few reasons why.
Stephen Spoonamore is a highly skilled cybersecurity analyst who has worked for the DoD, DHS, the Department of State, F100 Financials, and F500 Industrials.
He also served as CEO and CTO at seven prominent technology firms—two of which specialized in hacking and counter-hacking operations.
Stephen analyzed the voting data from the November 5, 2024, election and wrote a Duty to Warn letter to VP Harris in urgent response.
In his letter, he detailed the “unusual elements within the results” of his analysis that indicate the “Presidential vote was willfully compromised.” He also explained why VP Harris needed to reverse her concession, call for a comprehensive investigation into criminal activities, and demand hand recounts in all seven swing states, which she refrained from doing.
Dear Madam Vice President.
… This letter’s clear call to action is commendable, but its cautious tone may belie the severity of what I believe has happened. In my view it is a near certainty the results have been changed at a scale which reversed the US Presidential Election. They imply there is a chance a hand-recount will show you won more votes. I am stating a hand recount will most likely show you did win. Both letters call on you to act.
In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states.
Furthermore, the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) organization also analyzed ballot-level voting data from the Nov 5th, 2024, election using Cast Vote Record (CVR) data for Clark County, NV.
The analysis identified “voting pattern anomalies” consistent with manipulation, “Raising concerns about the integrity and the legitimacy of the 2024 Presidential Election.”
Here is some of what they found:
- Drop-Off Difference: The term “drop-off votes” refers to the votes cast for a presidential candidate versus the votes cast for a down-ballot candidate of the same party. In Clark County, as was the case across the swing states in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, there is a significant difference between Trump’s drop-off rate (+10.54%) and Harris’s drop-off rate (+1.07%).
- Increased Volume of Votes Linked to Greater Discrepancies: The greater number of ballots cast and processed in Early Voting, the more Trump’s vote count increased while Harris’s vote count decreased. The pattern is more distinct (closer to 60% votes for Trump, closer to 40% votes for Harris) with more ballots processed by a given tabulator.
- Abnormal Clustering: In contrast to Election Day voting, Early Vote results display an unusual pattern: once approximately 250 ballots have been processed a visible shift is observed, resulting in a high degree of clustering and unusual uniformity. This is a departure from expected human voting behavior.
And if we keep researching, these are not the only analyses taking place or the only ones offering insights into tampering with vote-counting computers and voter suppression tactics.
Investigative journalist and one-time forensic economist Greg Palast, who worked for attorneys general, the U.S. Department of Justice, other agencies, and federal courts, analyzed data from the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) and found that 4,776,706 voters, the majority of them Black, were wrongly purged from the voter rolls.
Experts from Microsoft and Amazon helped review every purged name in two swing states. They concluded they were overwhelmingly people of color. The results proved that if not for voter suppression tactics that denied young voters and people of color (mostly Black) their votes by purging, challenging, or rejecting their provisional ballots, VP Harris would have won by 3,565,000 votes and gained 286 electoral votes.
Here are key numbers:
- 4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
- By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed “vigilante” voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters. The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
- No less than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
- At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified.
- 1,216,000 “provisional” ballots were rejected, not counted.
- 3.24 million new registrations were rejected or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.
If the purges, challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.
The above scenario invalidates every media narrative about who came out to vote for VP Harris. Even with the false narratives, Black women showed up in large numbers for her. White women filled the gap; Black men participated; Latinos supported her, along with young voters and many newly registered voters casting their ballots for the first time.
It also proves there is more Black voter suppression than any other group happening in every election, and it warrants an investigation.
I mention all this to emphasize that with the ETA’s analysis using CVR data, publicly available from Clark County, NV, the analysis of the EAC, Stephen Spoonamore’s analysis and “Duty to Warn” letter, the FBI confirmation that Russia interfered (as usual) with our election, and Trump and Elon’s near admission of rigging the election, a hand recount and a forensic audit seemed the obvious thing to do at the bare minimum.
However, instead of considering the results, Democrats, fearful of being called hypocritical, co-signed and accepted the certification of a 34-times convicted felon who was facing three criminal indictments (two federal and one state) and awaiting sentencing for his conviction.
It is inconceivable that after this man has already tried to overthrow the very government he now controls again, they would so easily hand him the reigns of power a second time without considering any of what they witnessed or any of the data analysis that supports it.
Did it not occur to them that Trump was distressed about conceivably going to jail and would do whatever it took to avoid it?
If all of this is too hard to digest, wait until we have to digest the damage he’s going to do this time and get away with now that he’s wielding the powers of a king and has no opposition.
The reason why no one mentions anything about a rigged election, and we have not seen any headlines addressing this concern, is the apprehension about upsetting Trump and the Republicans.
Even though some Republicans highlighted the unusual anomalies and concurred that a simple hand recount and forensic audit were necessary.
So, here we are, two and a half weeks in, and the shitshow is in full swing.
0 Comments