By Ted Belman
Belman: Biden benefitted from at 15.3 million fraudulent ballots Nov 20/20
According to this, I was off by less than 400 K votes.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@Peloni, you are getting carried away. My friend believes there are not cases to be made enough states to show in a legal forum that the fraud changed the result of the election. Even if there was, there (which there is not) there is no legal mechanism to change the election result since it was certified almost a year ago now.
I am stopping the discussion with you now on this topic.
@Bear
What could the correct evidence look like? You either have confidence that the election was substantially accurate or you don’t. I don’t know how anyone could actually believe this is substantially accurate, given the vote count was literally fluctuating on live stream going up and down, sometimes by the thousands. The vote tally on the live streams were the official live tally reported in real time. If the many things, including regular fluctuations complete with negative vote counts for multiple candidates does not substantiate the vote is unviable, or that the machines were not certified, nor the hundreds, literally, of other topics are convincing, what could convince you? Barr’s statement has been debunked by his statement to Trump as Navarro confirms. So, your attorney friend feels a confidence in the election result? I find that remarkable given the fact that negative vote counts, fractional votes and the machines connected to wifi alone should render the vote under the rules of evidence as unacceptable. This doesn’t begin to address the ghost votes, or chain of custody violations or….As I say, you either have confidence in the vote or you don’t. I am just amazed that you or your lawyer friend do.
@Peloni, need to correct you about one minor point i am not passionate about this subject. With the correct evidence I would be persuaded differently.
@Bear
Oh, and then there is this:
This is from Peter Navarro on the War Room this past week
https://observernew.blogspot.com/2021/12/election-fraud-hearing-in-pima-county.html
Trust but Verify, and if you skip one, make sure to Verify.
@Bear
Lets look at what we are asked to accept and then at what we know.
What we are asked to accept:
We are to presume that the corrupt FBI and the corrupt DOJ acted at lightning speed to pursue the crime in six different states, involving millions of ballots and thousands of affiants, and probably several times that number of interviews of additional witnesses who did not swear statements. They would have had to have accessed the ballots and done a forensic analysis of the voting machines, the hardware and the software(they did none of this) And they accomplished all this in three weeks or less? Do you think this is possible? Ask your lawyer friend does he think its reasonable? Do remember, that the evidence kept dripping out weeks and month after Barr finished his thorough investigation. Do you believe that Barr would simply not act on criminal activities he found? Do you think he would ignore the discovery of safety issues discovered during his investigation, as he must have found them, because we found them months later. Is this what you believe? Really?
What we know:
After 3 weeks the case was closed and no explanation beyond the statement that there was not enough to overturn the election, after three weeks. No explanations. No list of interviewees. No pursuit of actual crimes discovered. Not one arrest. No pursuit of those who must have offered false affidavits. No reference to why we saw what when the vote count stooped simultaneously in 6 states. No ballot inspections. No machine inspections. No software inspection.
If Barr did conduct a investigation he was either blind or not very good at looking. Some day you will have to look at what was discovered in AZ(https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/09/based-on-these-factual-findings-the-election-should-not-be-certified-and-the-reported-results-are-not-reliable/), and AZ was likely the least corrupt of the states being pursued. You like to trust authorities in the state. I like to know they can be trusted. This is especially true when what they state is diametrically distinct from what I see as factual. Flipping votes, fractional votes, badly photoshopped votes, suitcases of votes, leaky toilets masked as watermain breaks, thousands of votes counted over and over and over, over 250,000 mail in ballots counted that were never mailed out in just one state.
You say I am not very convincing? That is not my role nor is it possible. How could I possibly hope to convince you, if you claim to have seen what is known, and, yet, you are not convinced. You are beyond the ability of being convinced. Your support of Barr and whoever else you seek guidance from persuades you. This is your right to view things however you assess them with a passion and certainty that you are right. I am no different. This is why Barr owed this country an explanation of his views, his findings, and his evidence drawing one to the other. His attestation is not enough for a reasonable person to accept, given what we know of the FBI and the DOJ. Though it seems his comments are enough for you, I find you to be far more accepting of these matters than I would expect of a reasonable person. I mean no slight by this statement, but it is a view I find striking given that I have come to find you to be more perceptive than many.
Think of the Mueller investigation, far from a perfect parallel, but it makes my point clear. If Mueller had simply stated that there was no evidence of obstruction or collusion and not released a report and not offered any explanation, just a thumbs up or down, would that have sufficed? No, it wouldn’t, it couldn’t and it shouldn’t. If he was to have chased the barn cat out of the barn, the world needed more than his word on it.
@Peloni, I worked in Criminal Justice in my young adulthood. Cases are hardly ever prosecuted unless the evidence is so strong that the prosecution is likely in their view to win the case. Prosecuting cases were there is slim evidence is normally viewed as malicious prosecution. Also as resources are not endless taking on cases that the evidence is not strong is a waste of money plus prosecutors times. You are very passionate about this subject but not to be rude not very convincing.
Your judgment of Barr comes from what personal inside knowledge or what the justice department did or did not do? Or just because you are so passionate on the subject you refuse to accept that he used his professional judgment and determined that there was no case to be made to overturn the election that could be proven.
Months later my prosecutor friend came to the same conclusion as Barr.
@Peloni, I hope where this proof if people committed voter fraud they will be prosecuted. I respect how passionately you feel on this subject. I stand by my prior stated views.
@Bear
We will see what comes of these matters, but it is not the role of a prosecutor, any prosecutor, to judge a matter settled. This is the role for a judge, or if the parties do not agree to a judge, it must be left to a jury, and as @Ted noted very wisely, the jury empaneled when a court refuses the case is public opinion.
We know there was evidence of a crime because we all witnessed multiple crimes in multiple states to which thousands(5,000 as I recall) of affidavits were collected attesting to crimes that they observed, under the threat of prosecution of perjury for bearing false witness. That was a great deal of evidence to assess and pursue. Yet, Barr’s investigation was conducted over a 3 week period. In that time he came to assess a full understanding of the crimes across the whole nation and to assess that there was not enough fraud present to overthrow the election. That must have been one hell of an intensive investigation by the FBI. The same FBI which have studied the Hunter Biden laptop for how long now? Yeah, that FBI.
Hence, Barr alone ruled on the matter in which he took no opportunity to demonstrate that any investigation was actually conducted. No one was heard to be interrogated. No interviews were released. No testimonials offered. No facts even summarizing why what we saw was something else. He did not arrest one person for the fraud, a fraud you yourself recognize as factual. In fact, Barr did not release knowledge of even one security weakness that was pursued during his presumed investigation. Also not one of the thousands of affiants were prosecuted for baring false witness, so their claims must not have been found as false. Prosecutors who choose to find a lack of evidence should at a minimum explain why they believe there is a lack of evidence. The claim, “Nothing to see here, folks, move along” is not substantially useful when there are demonstrably significant sources of fraud with national security matters in the balance.
If the evidence is too slim, too marginal and of an unconvincing nature, let the courts do what they are intended to do. Present the evidence to the public in an open forum. The ability for evidence in the Rittenhouse trial to convince even solidified Liberals that they were wrong demonstrates the cathartic power of full and transparent explanations and assessments of the facts. Yet, the public are judged too nimble of mind and too insignificant of person to be allowed the comfort of judging if what we saw was something else. The public should be able to know the facts, see them, judge them and assess their validity. It is the proper role of tyranny to convince their servant class that they are unequipped with the ability to judge anything for themselves. Such is the basis of a totalitarian state, not a democratic state.
The condescending nature by which Barr dismissed this matter without a proper review or explanation, even as evidence daily mounts to judge Barr wrong, speaks of a corruption of process. A similar corruption of process which prevent any access or knowledge of the details unfolding before the SCOTUS in this current enterprise in which the facts being judged are held as too sensitive for public viewing or even public knowledge, save the single article.
Hence, the opinions and statements of these elite figures may provide you comfort, solace, and confidence in an obviously broken system, but more than half the nation would disagree with you. In a democratic nation, that would seem to be a matter that should be addressed in a public, transparent and encompassing manner, not a judgement of fiat. It does seem to be something that would best adjudicated in a trial, regardless of Barr’s summary judgement to the contrary.
@Ted, I know you disagree with him. That is your right. I have read your points and spoken in depth with him and frankly and respectfully you have not convinced me.
With all due respect to your friend, I disagree with him. it is possible but perhaps not probable. Remember when the matter went t tSCOTUS, it wouldn’t hear the case on the basis that there was no standing. It did not say that it did have the power to undo it.
Also Byrne just told us that the SCOTUS has had a case fr 90 days which could result in undoing it.
Remember,the legal maxim, fraud vitiates everything.
@Ted, I believe there was fraud. My friend who is an ex-prosecutor, GOP member, Trump supporter has followed and read everything he could find publicly find on the matter says he has not seen enough evidence that he believed the election could have been overturned (confirming what Bill Barr said).
He also clearly stated even if there was, no mechanism exists to overturn the election. So Biden will serve out his four year term unless he is impeached (not happening too many Democrats in Congress) or he is removed the 25th amendment or dies.
Normally it must be proven in a court of law . Until then it is only alleged, But it can also be “proven ” in the court of public opinion.. For this to happen the evidence to be presented in a court of law must also be made public. It is the amount and quality of this evidence that convinces a knowledgeable person that it is “proven” or will be.
It is disingenuous to argue it is only alleged. It is natural to asses the evidence and come to an opinion that there was fraud or not..
Arguing that it is only alleged begs the issue. The issue is, have you seen enough to conclude there was massive fraud.
@Bear.
To be proven, there must be proof of a crime. Proof is the result of evidence that is placed before a court of law and which withstands the process of cross examination. Hence, the complicity of the corrupt courts have been a significant barrier to establishing anything as “proof”.
There is, however, right now a case before the SCOTUS in which Kelly Sorelle is arguing the issues related to HAVA and the Voting Rights Act of 1964 violations as related to disadvantaging both Black and Hispanic voters in the state of AZ, which has a very persuasive legal basis under the law. The case is under seal. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS will argue that it is substantially acceptable to steal voting rights from minorities. Should this play out, it will likely affect every election in question, and many that are not in question, yet. In any case, once they unseal the case, you will likely hear of some “proof”.
Here is the only article available on the sealed case.
https://www.israpundit.org/justice-thomas-is-listening-potential-scotus-hearing-major-call-to-action-on-election-integrity-by-kari-donovan/
@Peloni, I say it has NOT been proven. Alleging a crime and proving it are two different things. Not ONE state has been proven in a court of law to have changed enough votes to turn over the election result. Let alone what is the five states or so that the results would have needed to have been proven.
@Bear
You say you believe that fraud was established but not enough to overturn the elections. If this is so, why has there not been any State or Federal investigations? I mean election fraud is not a crime only if you overwhelm a presidential election, right? But no investigations. No arrests. No statements about the fraud. If they investigated the elections they would find the answers. Why aren’t they investigating the fraud at the State or Federal level. The Rep states don’t even need to fight to investigate the fraud. Why aren’t they doing so?
In any case, something big(SCOTUS level) is likely about to break, so stay tuned…
The election is via electoral college votes state by state and not total votes in the entire USA.
I believe that there was fraud in the election. However, can anyone prove in enough states that fraud occurred to have overturned the election?
Have the election results been overturned or proven in any of the close states? Has there been any final decision in court cases were the election fraud was determined by the court?
The Sec. of State of GA was on a morning show the day after the election. He stated that there was exactly 2% of the GA vote left to count. He noted that Trump was trailing ~103K votes and that Trump could not win. He reasoned that even Trump gained 100% of the outstanding votes he would be short of winning. 2% of the vote was about 94K votes so the difference would have been ~9K votes.
Surprisingly, three days later when the vote was completed, there was an additional 298K votes, rather than the expected 94K votes. Fraud-skeptics might suggest that mistakes happen and a number of other non-factual possibilities might have occured to explain this huge discrepency, but the state of GA had purchased a vote tallying system that monitored in real time the number of absentee ballots, those counted, those to be counted and those currently being processed. Hence, the notion that an additional more than 200K votes just happened to appear is just further evidence of the obvious election theft conducted in 2020.
The story can be read here
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/12/10/trump-was-right-to-question-the-georgia-election-results/