top of page

How We Know Who Won the Election

Updated: Mar 3, 2021

There's a particular pattern I keep seeing in my "debates" with people on social media.

1. First, they'll declare, "There is no evidence of election fraud."

2. I'll say something along the lines of, "If there's no evidence, then how did I collect an entire library of it, over the past 2 months? How do I have an entire folder of it sitting on my desktop? Why do I have a publicly accessible Google Drive full of it?"

3. At this point, a bunch of people will reply, and they'll usually break down in approximately the following ratio:

  • 2 people will call me a "moron"

  • 3 will call me some other type of name

  • 2 will launch into a diatribe about the awful, awful Orange Man and how bad he is

  • 1 or 2 will mock me by posting a gif of some cartoon or movie character who supposedly represents the mentally challenged, (thereby exploiting disabled people as a rhetorical bludgeon, even after they just got done lambasting the president for "mocking a disabled reporter", while of course being oblivious to the irony)

  • 1 will accuse me of being a "flat earther"

  • 1 or 2 will call me a racist/bigot/sexist/____phobe etc.

  • and 1 will attempt to engage in something resembling a civil conversation.

But it quickly devolves into a circular argument - one which goes like this:

Me: Will you examine this evidence that I've got here, please?

Them: No need. It's bad/fake/invalid.

Me: How do you know that, if you haven't even looked at it?

Them: Because there's no evidence. If there is none, then obviously you don't have any.

Me: But I've got it, right here. I'm looking at it.

Them: It's not valid.

Me: How do you know? You haven't even looked at it. You don't even know what it is.

Them: Because there's no evidence.

This really happens.

Circular Logic

9 times out of 10, the person never asks me to show them any of the evidence. The conversation just keeps going around in a circle, with me asking them how they know the evidence is bogus, and them telling me "because there's no evidence."

Even though I'm looking at a whole library of it. Right as they're telling me it's not there.

But every now and then, someone will actually ask for it. And so I direct them to my Google Drive where I've collected it. Then, they get to browse through a whole library of it, catalogued by topic and sub-topic.

The votes were tabulated in computers, with source codes nobody has access to.

The company that makes the computers is owned by the party leadership of one of the parties running in the election.

Actuaries and forensic accountants found statistical impossibilities in the numerical data, and made hour-long video-lectures explaining how and why.

Vote counting was suddenly and mysteriously ordered stopped by the election overseers in several key swing states, citing bizarre excuses such as a water-pipe bursting in an entirely different building.

After the counting was officially "stopped", people at the tabulation centers reported seeing barrels of ballots delivered in the middle of the night, providing hundreds of thousands of votes exclusively to one candidate and zero to the other.

These reports were reflected in the numbers reported on election-reporting websites and TV news networks, who showed one candidate jumping over a hundred thousand votes at once, with the other candidate's total not changing at all.

Some ballots were found dumped in dumpsters and roadside ditches, nearly all of which were marked for one candidate.

Poll workers filmed themselves ripping up ballots of one candidate, proudly.

Poll observers were denied entry to tabulation centers, in blatant violation of election law. Some centers placed boards over their windows so no one could see inside.

Some observers, inside buildings, were kept so far away from the tables as to have no chance of seeing what the tabulators were doing. In some cases, metal separators were erected around the tables so that not even binoculars could have done the job.

Some observers were threatened by election staff. Many were kicked out. Audio recordings emerged of state election officials instructing poll workers to intimidate poll-watchers.

America's election process has fallen to the level we used to laugh at when we saw it happening in tin-pot dictatorships.

And yet it was far more sophisticated than that.

The machines themselves were programmed to count votes differently, based on the candidate. In some cases, a Trump vote was programmed to count as .75 votes, and a Biden vote as 1.25.

The machines even had Wi-Fi, and were connected to the internet. People could hack into them - for even just log into them - and change how the votes were being counted in real time.

There's even a central command center, in Frankfurt Germany, where the CIA was monitoring and directing the operation. All vote data from Dominion election systems funneled into Frankfurt, before being sent back to the respective state tabulation centers.

This election was a farce, from top to bottom.

And yet some people still ask me, "Where's the fraud? Where's your EVIDENCE?"

Hundreds of videos. Thousands of sworn affidavits, made under penalty of perjury. Thousands. Two months of Sydney Powell press conferences, full of evidence being laid out. One month of public, televised hearings in state legislatures, full of evidence being presented and cross-examined.

And yet they still ask me: "Where's the evidence?"

If a person doesn't know by now, it's because they don't want to know.

It's all over the internet. All it takes is a simple Google search. Type it in, and numerous results show up. Far more than you could read in one sitting. It's easy to find.

All I had to do was type "election fraud" into a search engine...

If a person doesn't know what the evidence is, it's because he hasn't looked. Hasn't searched. Hasn't even tried to find it.

Doesn't want to find it.

Such a person is happy with the result, because it turned out the way they wanted. Their guy won. (Or appears to have won). So it doesn't matter whether the election was legitimate or fraudulent. They don't care that there was fraud; in fact, they're happy about the fraud - as long as their team benefits from it.

These are people who spent the past 4 years crowing about "Russian election interference" and "foreign collusion" and "democracy under threat." The phrase "election integrity" was their staple phrase, their war-chant. Yet now, when there's fraud that helps them, they don't care. They spent 4 years combing over every little morsel of the Mueller investigation, desperate for the tinniest piece of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to put anti-Clinton ads on Facebook (oh, the horror), and yet now, when there's collusion with the voting machine companies, and the machines themselves were rigged from the inside; and it's clear, obvious, and in-your-face; they deny it.

They deny it while smiling with a twinkle in their eye.

They know.

The problem is not a lack of evidence. The problem is they don't want any.

* * *

"Even if there really was fraud, how do you know that it was big enough to sway the outcome? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered either way. Maybe it would have turned out the same, even with a fair election!"

It's obvious, to anyone paying attention, that Donald Trump won the 2020 Election, for the simple reason that the the Democrats wouldn't have rigged it if they thought they would win normally. You don't cheat if you're confident you'll win without cheating.

They needed to, or else they wouldn't have done it.

Would you cheat, if you were confident you could win fairly?

Of course not. This is not rocket science.

So logically, it's obvious. The Democrats, going into the election, perceived themselves as without a chance of winning. They had no confidence, because they knew they were beat. So they cheated. You don't cheat unless you expect to lose otherwise.

The majority of America wants Trump. And the Democrats knew it.

If they knew it, you should know it too.

"But this is not proof that Trump won it. It may be common sense, but common sense is not how we determine the outcome of elections. We determine by votes. Otherwise, it wasn't an election. It was just a poll. You can't prove that Trump won."

And you can't prove Biden as the winner either. This election did not produce proof that either candidate got more votes than the other. Not nationally, not by state, and not even by precinct. This election was such a farce, it proved absolutely nothing.

"So how do you legally establish Trump's win? What if we can't find enough specific sets of votes numbers to correct, to put him over the top?"

At this point, we don't need to. It's not even about numbers, anymore All we need is a simple legal principle - one which just happens to be something that children as young as 3 years old understand:

Cheating = Disqualification.

It's clear that the Democratic Party cheated, and did so with clear intent. And as soon as you cheat, you lose the game. Random fraud committed by random voters, on their own, doesn't disqualify the candidate they're cheating on behalf of. But when the cheating was orchestrated by the candidate, then it does. Any amount of cheating, approved from the top, by the candidate himself - no matter how small it was - and he's out.

Fraud vitiates the entire contract.

This is not a controversial concept.

Cheating = Disqualification.

* * *

"Maybe you do have a bunch of "evidence", but it's not GOOD evidence. I know this, because THE COURTS are throwing it out."

Ah yes, it all funnels into that one last bulwark of denial: the courts.

Reminder: The word "dismissed" means they didn't give it a hearing

"The courts have *rejected* all his lawsuits. Therefore, his lawsuits have no merit, and the evidence contained within them is weak, unsubstantiated, or invalid. Without valid evidence of fraud, there was therefore was no fraud, and the election was conducted fairly."

First of all, this argument constitutes a clear appeal to authority (argumentum ad authoritatum), in which a person outsources the responsibility to evaluate the evidence, from themselves onto the Annointed Ones who wear special robes.

"It's usually a bad type of argument. However, there are some debates in which it may have validity. After all, experts are right sometimes. Maybe even a bit more than laypeople. So if a court - especially the SCOTUS - finds a case to be un-meritorious enough to reject it, doesn't that count for *SOMETHING*?"

Well hang on. "Rejected", is not a legal term. Are you talking about "ruling against", or "dismissal"?

In almost all of the lawsuits, including most importantly the Supreme Court lawsuits, the judges did not rule against Trump. They dismissed his cases without ruling on them.

Without hearing them.

They've all "thrown out" the president's cases, mostly without bothering to grant actual hearings.

Reminder: The word "dismissed" means they didn't give it a hearing

One judge, in Wisconsin, even had what appears to be an emotional breakdown, stating, after declining to hear the case:

"What you want is you want us to overturn this election so your king can stay in power, and that is so un-American but for you to say that anyone in Wisconsin engaged in fraud, but for you to perpetuate that fallacy [Editor's note: how does she know the fraud is a fallacy if she hasn't heard the case?] on the people of Wisconsin and the people of the United States of America in what has been called the most significant election in our lifetime is nothing short of shameful.”

"Shameful." For bringing a case to her.

Shameful? Really?

We've been watching for years as people on the Leftward side of the spectrum became increasingly censorious - as they increasingly relied on preventing debate as a means to win a debate.

At first it was only in Tumblr forums. Then it spread to Facebook and Reddit. Then all of social media.

We warned people that this problem would only get bigger and metastasize into a wider and wider range of institutions.

First, politics. Then mainstream media. Then, in 2020, in regards to the "pandemic", academia started doing this, and censoring dissenting scientists.

And now, finally, judges are doing it, in their official capacities, from the bench.

"OK but still that doesn't PROVE anything. Just because some judges have such bad TDS that they're having mental breakdowns at the thought of hearing cases on behalf of Trump, doesn't *automatically* mean that the cases themselves have actual merit."

Actually, yes it does. It does prove that.

"Huh? What kind of crazy talk is this?"

Let's assume, for the moment, that you are right! The evidence really is all bogus.

All of Trump's cases. All of the evidence. Completely without the tiniest shred of merit.


That'll be your free Bingo square, for the time being.


"OK. Keep going."

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but all this really does is confirm that the courts ought to hear it, to get it out in the open, so everyone can see clearly how flawed it is, to put the matter to rest.

If the fraud allegations are false, then the most appropriate thing to do is hear the cases. In courtroom argumentation, the whole thing can be laid out, bare, for everyone to see. No more secrecy and speculation.

Why are we needing to speculate? Don't you find it odd that we need to do all this guesswork? Why won't the courts just hear the damn cases, and let the public see what the arguments are? Why hush it up? What benefit could there possibly be to suppressing it and not even allowing a conversation on it to take place?

"Because the cases are frivolous! The Supreme Court doesn't have time! They're very busy people!"

They don't have time for a case brought by the President of the United States? Is he not important enough?

"But he would just keep filing case after case after case, and it would never end! They have to put their foot down SOMEWHERE."

"Somewhere," meaning "at the very beginning, before the process even starts?"

"But it would just keep going and going. These crazy MAGA people would just keep coming up with more cases. It would drag on forever!"

No, not "forever." It would drag on, at most, until January 20th.

There's a time limit of 79 days, from Nov 3 to Jan 20.

Why can't there be a discussion for, at most, 79 days?

Half of the country believes our elections are no longer legitimate. The bedrock of our entire democracy has been corrupted. This is big. If half the country no longer has confidence in our most fundamental institution, how can this constitute anything less than an existential crisis for the nation? What "other business" could the judges have that's more important than addressing this?

If the elections really are clean, and the fraud allegations really are false, then the best way to prove that would be in court - in the SCOTUS - with all the evidence laid out, and all the journalists reporting and analyzing it. If your side is right, that would put the rumors to rest, and the country could heal.

Conversely, if they refuse to hear the cases, it keeps the questions alive, and gives them an ever-increasing amount of juice, from the Streisand-Effect, in which the more you try to hush something up, the more people take an interest in it. The more the courts bury the questions about the legitimacy of the election, the more people will latch on to these questions, undermining faith in our elections and in the legitimacy of the supposedly "incoming administration."

And the judges know this. Come on, they know this. You can't possibly convince me that they don't know this.

The judges all know that transparency is the key to unity and healing, and they know that obstruction, suppression, and evasion could lead to a civil war before the demented pervert and the prison-labor lady even get sworn in. They know this.

So why aren't they hearing the cases?

It makes zero sense.


...unless there WAS fraud. And there IS evidence. And they're bought. They're compromised. Someone's intimidating them.

Or bribing them.

Or has kompromat on them.

Or all three.

Our governments have 3 branches. If the executive and legislative branches can be infiltrated and corrupted, why can't the judicial branch be corrupted too? If you can buy a politician, why can't you buy a judge?

Obviously, you can. If you have enough money. And many people do. And have done so. And this can only mean one thing:

The courts have been infiltrated, by the same enemy that has corrupted academia, the medical field, the scientific community, the entertainment industry, the corporate newsmedia, and all the rest of our society's institutions.

That is the only logical explanation for their choice to evade the cases. No other makes sense.

"But the evidence is all crap! It's fake! It's invalid! I looked at it! I read the dockets! I read the petitions! I read the dismissal statements! I'm a lawyer, so I understand it! It really IS all bogus evidence! It really is!"

And all you're doing is proving me right that the courts should take up the cases.

Make no mistake about this:

The righter you are that the evidence is invalid and unsupported and the cases are bogus, the righter I am that the courts should take them up and hear them.

You being right that the evidence is easily refutable... makes me right that the courts ought to allow it to be presented.

The easier it is to refute, the more reason for the courts to have open debates on it.

So you're kinda trapped, logically. You have to admit either:

  1. The evidence is valid, and the Democrats really did cheat.

  2. The evidence is bogus, in which case the courts are acting extremely weirdly, and jeopardizing their long-term respectability in order to avoid debating an "easily refutable" set of accusations.

Number 2 does not make sense at all, logically.

Number 1 is the only option that makes sense.

87 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page