The cornerstone of Jack Smith’s indictment against former President Donald Trump is that he took actions to challenge the 2020 election despite knowing, for a fact, that he had lost that election.
According to Smith, many officials, including Bill Barr and Christopher Krebs, told Trump he lost. In addition, Smith says, there was no evidence of significant fraud. Therefore, Trump had to know that his actions were supported by a big lie.
I have a problem with Smith’s “logic” because, to this day, I am certain that Trump did not lose the election.
I base that opinion on two and a half years of intense research, as outlined in two books — one already published and another about to be published on Sept. 1. I will outline part of that research here.
First, however, we need to discuss a couple of very wise government officials who, according to Smith, educated Trump regarding the absence of election fraud.
Are these government officials credible?
Bill Barr’s iconic declaration
How many times have you heard these words, spoken by the former attorney general? “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”
That Dec. 1 statement is treated as gospel by the left. It is considered acid-proof evidence that there was no election fraud.
The reality, however, is that Barr’s words could not reflect evidence of fraud found after Nov. 13 (just 10 days after the election). Here’s why.
Six days after the election (Nov. 9), Barr issued a memo to his Elections Crimes Branch, telling the small staff that they had approval to investigate any potentially significant election crimes that came to their attention. That innocuous memo was so outrageous to the director of the ECB, Richard Pilger, that he quit in a huff that very day.
Four days later, the rest of the ECB staff wrote to Barr, asking him to rescind his original memo because, after a whopping four days of investigation, they had found no crimes. Thus, the Barr statement reflected only four days of investigation.
Christopher Krebs, a man of questionable competence and honesty
Like Barr, Krebs has one of the go-to quotes that the establishment media cites ad nauseam: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. … We can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”
There are two problems with that statement: It is highly misleading and it implies a level of competence that Krebs and his organization, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, did not possess.
Look again at Krebs’ words. Did he limit his proclamation to the work of his agency, which was to detect cybersecurity threats — primarily from foreign sources? Or did he imply that the election was secure in other ways?
In the view of Sen. Rand Paul, Krebs was misleading. If you want some amusement, watch Krebs squirm in silence as Paul calls him out for his disingenuous declaration. (Paul’s words can be heard in this video starting at 1:26:41.)
“If you’re saying it’s the safest election based on no dead people voted, no non-citizens voted, no people broke the absentee rules, I think that’s false, and I think that’s what’s upset a lot of people on our side. It’s that they’re taking your statement to mean, ‘Oh well, there was no problem in the election.’ I don’t think you examined any of the problems that we’ve heard here.”
In response to Paul, Krebs said nothing. He simply sat with arms folded. After more than an hour, Sen. Rob Portman reminded Krebs of Paul’s statement, and he finally confessed: “We absolutely were not … speaking to the fraud aspect.”
What about the competence of Krebs and his agency?
After Krebs was fired, two significant cybersecurity fiascos were discovered that had both taken place right under his nose. Two Iranians were charged with “hacking into a state computer election system, stealing voter registration data and using it to carry out a cyber-intimidation campaign.”
Later, it was determined that one of the largest hacks in history (Solar Winds) had been going on for months or longer — without the knowledge of CISA or Krebs.
Let’s turn now directly to evidence of fraud and irregularities.
Jack Smith doesn’t think these items exist, but they remain unresolved to this day. To avoid running out of space in this article, I will simply list some of the many issues that remain unresolved. Many are addressed fully in my books and on my Substack account.
In Georgia, the collapse of mail-in ballot rejection rates was likely evidence of fraud. It still is.
In the 2020 election, almost no one had his or her ballot rejected due to a signature problem or any other type of irregularity. In fact, the rejection rate dropped to just 1/18th of the rate for 2016. That added at least 78,000 ballots to the vote count.
Who decided that the 78,000 votes were valid and should be counted? Why, that would be the workers in the county election offices. I guess they are the ones who really won the state for Biden.
By the way, in the huge and very blue county of Fulton, which includes most of Atlanta, the rate dropped even more — to just 1/128th of the statewide rate for 2016. Despite that, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger blocked, and continues to block, any external review of Fulton County mail-in ballots.
I just said that a review of Fulton County ballots has been continuously blocked by the Georgia secretary of state. However, the dedicated nonprofit organization VoterGA managed to get some low-resolution images of Fulton’s ballots.
The findings are astonishing:
- Although it takes at least one second to scan a ballot, there are over 4,000 ballots with precisely the same timestamp — to the second.
- 16,034 mail-in ballot authentification files (.sha files) were added several days after scanning. This makes no sense because the system creates the .sha files simultaneously with the image files. (A .sha file is a “secured hash algorithm” file and is added as a security measure. It is also a requirement of Georgia law.)
- 132,284 mail-in ballot images (.tif files) cannot be authenticated due to missing .sha files. For all we know, these images could have been made in Raffensperger’s basement.
These are just three of the 15 findings itemized by VoterGA in a March 2022 news conference.
For the 2020 election, Michigan planned to authenticate mail-in ballots by means of signature matching, which Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said was superior to using ID.
After making that statement, however, Benson gutted the signature standard by telling election clerks to “presume” signatures were valid. So there was absolutely no way to authenticate ballots in Michigan.
Trump sued to require signature verification, and he won — four months after the election. That is when a judge ruled that Benson had broken the law. Due to her actions, the Michigan election results should be decertified.
205,000 more ballots than voters in Pennsylvania
Jack Smith refers to this in his indictment: “The Defendant asserted that there had been 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania. The Defendant’s Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General had explained to him that this was false. “
When will attorneys stop pretending they are auditors? To this day, Pennsylvania’s vote and voter counts are unsettled matters.
I am still waiting for the secretary of state to put out a meaningful reconciliation of ballots to voters. (I have tried to get it.) To be legitimate, the reconciliation should list the weekly increases in voters, votes, overvotes, undervotes and written votes for each county.
Such a reconciliation has not been made available, and I strongly suspect that the secretary of state has no one on staff with the requisite competence to prepare such a reconciliation. (By the way, the original number was 202,000 — not 205,000.)
Jesse Morgan and his tractor-trailer of ballots
Jesse Morgan has consistently claimed that he transported hundreds of thousands of completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania shortly before the election.
The Postal Service inspector general admitted that 650,000 ballots were printed in New York and taken to the Philadelphia area, but neither the IG nor the ballot printer could recall whether the Postal Service or the printer transported them. (Maybe it was Jesse?)
Maricopa County’s 204,000 phony ballots
In Maricopa County, a panel of six people, including three document examiners, determined that 12 percent of sampled mail-in ballots appeared to be phony. It was a 6-0 decision that implies that 204,000 mail-in ballots were phony countywide.
Arizona’s phony overseas vote
That would be almost 20 times Biden’s winning margin.
Imagine this: In a county where Trump received about 49 percent of the vote and Biden got about 51 percent, the overseas vote split like this: Trump 5 percent, Biden 95 percent.
To make matters worse, there was almost no documentation to support those bizarre numbers, which accounted for 8,000 of Biden’s 10,400-vote winning margin. (See this video starting at 1:55:00.)
Pima County and the allegation of 35,000 ballots stuffed for Biden
Way back in 2020, this allegation went to the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, but the DOJ isn’t talking.
An anonymous tipster said he was at a meeting of Democrats where a plan was hatched to add 35,000 votes to Biden’s totals. Thanks to Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai and his unique and brilliant statistical analysis, we know that this allegation is highly credible.
Non-citizen voting is a fact
Several months after the election, Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske acknowledged that thousands of non-citizens probably voted in Nevada’s 2020 election. Determining the exact number is almost impossible because the government blocks efforts to obtain such information.
Conclusion
Jack Smith would have zero chance of getting a conviction based on his evidence if this trial were held in a neutral venue. However, it will be in Washington, D.C., where about 95 percent of the citizens are Democrats.
For this reason, Trump and the other defendants may have to win this one on appeal.
For more information concerning these matters, check out “Debunked?” and “How Elections Are Stolen,” which outline 23 problems that must be fixed before the 2024 elections.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
via westernjournal