Friends, we're reaching the tipping point of our efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Dems and their media allies are doing their best to ensure that Biden's win is so "baked in" and widely accepted that reversing it will be, if not legally or constitutionally impossible, psychologically unthinkable. In other words, if we're to prove our case about fraud -- beyond Republicans, who are already mostly convinced -- we need to get busy! My view is that the strongest possible proof can only be obtained by experienced, tough law enforcement professionals, who, in this particular case, have yet to be called upon, because the swamp monsters who give them orders have no interest in "election fraud" since, they assume, it doesn't exist! My latest article, therefore, makes the case that the two greatest impediments to the exposure of the malfeasance in the 2020 election may well be Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray. I am NOT calling for their death by guillotine, but I am challenging President Trump to fire them, if he is sincere in his belief that the election was "rigged" and further believes that the two chief law enforcement officers in the country are sitting on their hands. In other words, if President Trump wants to play this game, he should play to win!
Here's the article, which will be appearing soon at World Net Daily:
Fire Bill Barr and Christopher Wray, Mr. President, If They Won't Investigate Election Fraud
I am a Trumper, but I am also a realist.
For this reason, I have always assumed that, even if Democratic electoral chicanery in 2020 went well beyond bending the rules for mail-in voting to the breaking point, proving naked and systemic fraud, like ballot stuffing in deep blue jurisdictions, would be very hard. After all, if election workers were themselves the authors of the fraud, why would they ever admit to their crimes? Surely, to accomplish that, the forces of law enforcement would need to lean on these reprobates very aggressively (or offer them some generous plea deals) to get them to "flip" on one another. Easier said than done, and virtually impossible when state and federal law enforcement is sitting on its hands, as it has been for the last month.
Well! I forgot about the fact that much of this fraud occurred in areas that would be subject to video surveillance, and now, thanks to that surveillance, we have compelling evidence of ballot stuffing on an industrial scale in Fulton County, Georgia. One wonders what sleight of hand the mainstream media will use to make this bombshell seem like a dud. As best as I can tell, their strategy is simply to give the story the Hunter Biden treatment: they refuse to cover it.
Democrats and so-called journalists have the luxury, for now, of pretending that their line about “zero evidence” is still credible. We Trumpers, however, can't sit back and wait for the tide to turn on its own. We need to be proactive. The video in Georgia gives us a window of opportunity to make further progress in documenting the egregious fraud that happened in this election cycle. We cannot afford to let this opportunity pass us by.
For one thing, we can confidently assume that, as we speak, election authorities throughout this country, and especially in deep blue Dem cities, are reviewing and deleting surveillance footage that shows similar criminal behavior. We need to act fast to scoop up as much of this video as we can, while it still exists.
Local, state, and federal law enforcement should swing into action to interrogate the election workers and supervisors involved in Fulton County, and, whenever there is probable cause (like the presence of multiple affidavits), the same “third degree” should be administered to election authorities in places like Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Las Vegas. After all, statistical evidence of probable fraud is compelling, and so is witness testimony, but confessions from actual fraudsters are, well, virtually incontrovertible.
Another potential opportunity area is cellular communications and emails between election workers and/or Democratic Party operatives. Has anyone been reviewing such communications? Of course not. That would require subpoenas, and, as we've been told a thousand times, there's "zero evidence" to justify them. Well, now there is evidence in Fulton County...so let's get on with it!
The problem we will encounter is that the fraudsters have already been given a month to cover their tracks. We simply can't afford to give them any more of a head start than that!
At the end of the day, to break this case wide open, press conferences and state legislative committee hearings won't suffice. What we need instead is to shine the alarmingly bright light of law enforcement in the startled faces of actual electoral villains. We need prosecutors to threaten those guilty of crimes with serious penalties and jail time, because only then will the guilty begin to play ball and reveal the big fish who ordered and organized the theft of the 2020 election.
While local and state police and prosecutors can be helpful, there's really no substitute for the active involvement of the DOJ and the FBI. Thus far, Bill Barr and Christopher Wray have been remarkably mum on the topic of election integrity, and in some cases their comments have even undercut the President's position. As far as we can tell, virtually none of the massive resources these men can bring to bear have been deployed to get to the bottom of what happened in this election cycle.
Surely, though, if the law enforcement machinery of the United States government can turn on a dime to investigate a decades-old and completely unsubstantiated (in fact, refuted) allegation of sexual assault against a model citizen like Brett Kavanaugh, it could also, in theory, bestir itself to examine whether the reported result of our recent presidential election was legitimate or not, and whether fraud was a significant factor or not.
My view, Mr. President, is that getting answers to these questions about election integrity is probably the most grave and pressing task that either Mr. Barr or Mr. Wray will ever tackle in the course of their long careers of public service. We have a right to expect that they will answer the call. If they don't, you should not hesitate to dismiss them and find someone who will.
After all, we're not telling Barr and Wray what to find. We're merely asking them to look and to keep an open mind.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
Voila! The WND version:
https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/bill-barr-chris-wray-wont-probe-election-fire/
And here's some more goodies for you:
https://www.jenkuznicki.com/transcript-mark-levin-on-pennsylvanias-crucial-appeal-to-scotus
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/barr-trump-doj/2020/12/07/id/1000409/
https://thepostmillennial.com/arizona-supreme-court-to-hear-gop-mail-in-ballot-challenge
Dr. Waddy, in terms of GA, you are either misinformed, or you are lying. The Fox affiliate in Atlanta just did a segment on the "smoking gun" video. They looked at all the video shot before and after the clip that COVID Rudy has been showing. The whole video demonstrates that there was nothing nefarious going on. So, that "evidence" is debunked.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, I suggest that if you don't have a background in statistics that you refrain from discussing so-called "statistical evidence." I have an extensive background in statistics, and have often taught it. The "statistical evidence" I have seen has been laughable.
Finally, you are an historian, Dr. Waddy, so you must remember that the "Saturday Night Massacre" was a major turning point in the Nixon presidency. If Trump fires Barr and/or Wray, that will be his equivalent to Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."
Rod
DeleteI'm waiting eagerly for your next lecture on statistics.
Have a nice day, asshole.
I believe it was Mark Twain who popularized (but did not originate) "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" in The United States of America.
ReplyDeleteI too am an historian. I teach history and political science in college, and I know that there is no comparison between Trump and Nixon. Nixon attempted to cover up what became known as
The "Watergate Scandal" and finally resigned. He should never have attempted to cover it up in the first place and protect a bunch of scoundrels in his administration. Nixon did the correct thing in resigning. In any event I have no use for Nixon. He and that arrogant power broker Henry Kissinger opened up relations with the world's biggest and most ruthless Communist dictatorship The People's Republic of China. We are still paying for his huge mistake, and will continue to pay for it on a deadly basis if and when Biden and his gang take office. Suffice to say there is NO comparison between Trump and Nixon whatsoever. However, certain fools fail to realize this when opening their pie holes on this issue.
Even if The BidenISTAS take office they will never unite this country. That's because millions of Americans now realize the contempt that The Left (Biden and Obama and those of their ilk) hold for ordinary Americans (except the fools they lied to and brain-washed into voting for them). Shades of that arrogant bitch Hillary Clinton and her statement about all those "deplorable" Trump supporters.
In addition, it is going to be very difficult to establish a Leftist, Marxist oriented DemoSocialist regime in this country. We have never had a dictatorship as such, so it will not be easy for the DemoNISTAS to impose one on us, although I am sure they will do their damndest along with all of their pimps in the film industry, academe, the media, and the high tech mafia.
It is very IMPORTANT to understand that the last four years and this current election fiasco is NOT really all about Trump. As usual, the Princes and Pimps of Leftist Propaganda (posing as "Democrats") have painted Trump as a crazy kind of guy with orange hair. What this is really all about is that the American Left has finally been called out for their decades long war on our Constitutional Republic and their dream of replacing it with global socialism. That's what this is really all about. In that regard, Trump has served as a catalyst, but many others are and should carry on his basic message in the future. Too bad that scores of decent Americans who have been screwed over have not taken to the streets and raised a stink higher then that perpetrated by the pawns and stooges in Antifa and BLM. In Portland, Oregon, the Leftist dregs who run that city allowed the annual nude parade to take place during the Corona surge, but did NOTHING to prevent downtown Portland from being wrecked by Antifa and BLM. Businesses have been ruined, and pleas but pleas from owners have gone unheard.
ReplyDeleteRod, conservatives do not consider the Fulton County video debunked. Those who believe it is debunked are taking the word of the people who ran things in that counting room. They are rejecting sworn accounts of the Republicans who were present in the room. I guess it's easy to "debunk" anything if you only believe the people who tell you what you want to hear.
ReplyDeleteYou're right: I'm not an expert in statistics. I guess you are? Funny, then, that you haven't commented on the substance of ANY of the statistical critiques of the election that I've posted. You've merely insulted them. Is that how the "science" of statistics works? Please, enlighten us!
I agree with Ray that there are enormous differences between Trump and Nixon. For one thing, in Nixon's day the mainstream media really did have a monopoly on the distribution of political information. No longer! For another thing, if one assumes Trump is on course to "lose" the 2020 election, then he has nothing to lose, in turn, by firing Barr and Wray. It would be a long-shot bid to force the DOJ and FBI to get the goods on his enemies. At worst, it would fail.
Ray, I think you're right that it will be hard for the Dems to secure a dictatorship. For one thing, Biden's tepid popularity wouldn't long survive contact with reality, the public, a vaguely adversarial press corps, or the hard-left of his own party. He's a stalking horse who was propped up for one reason only: to defeat Trump. Assuming Trump WAS defeated, things only get harder from there for the Dems. Good luck passing any legislation in a House and Senate, both of which are essentially tied in a partisan sense. Good luck making any fundamental changes with a solidly conservative SCOTUS to restrain you. And good luck brainwashing the public when the media becomes more diverse and in many ways more free all the time.
Ray, I certainly agree that we patriots need to take to the streets and make a "stink" much more often. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, after all.
Dr. Waddy, conservatives may not consider the Fulton County video debunked, but rational people who have seen all the video do consider it to be debunked.
ReplyDeleteYou want substantive critique of the statistical "evidence"? Let's go with Charles Cicchetti's claim that the chance of Biden winning GA, MI, PA and WI after Trump had early leads was "one in a quadrillion."
His analysis fails because of massive faulty assumptions. For example, he assumes that any two large groups of voters should generate similar results. Well, Milwaukee County and Ozaukee County are next to one another, and yet Milwaukee County went 69% Biden and Ozaukee County 55% Trump.
Plus, groups can split by voting method. In the 20 states that report party registration, the split for in-person voting was 42% GOP, 36% Diem and 22% unaffiliated. In terms of mail-in balloting, the numbers were 48% Dem, 27% GOP and 22% unaffiliated.
Cicchetti's analysis ignored these factors in why early and late returns differed. The analysis assumed that votes are all independently and randomly distributed, and they are not.
Cicchetti's analysis is a great case study for introductory statistics.
Further, let's look at his analysis of GA. He observed that Trump was leading 51-49% at 3 am on November 4, but lost. He stated: The Georgia reversal in the outcome raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of votes cast."
The problem is that they are NOT random samples. Late morning on November 4, the GA secretary of state announced that 200,000 absentee votes had yet to be counted, most from Fulton and DeKalb counties. DeKalb went 83% for Biden and Fulton 73%. A random sample theoretically would have had about equal numbers of Trump and Biden voters. But, the method of voting made a difference.
The same thing happened in Wisconsin.
Each of the four states listed in the TX lawsuit did not allow absentee votes to be counted before Election Day. That is why the votes came in later.
I have trashed the statistical analyses because they all have been faulty -- lacking basic understanding of statistics and sampling.
Interesting, Rod. Can you provide a link to Cicchetti's analysis? I'm not sure which analysis you're referring to... Anyway, I certainly see your point that someone who is narrowly ahead COULD fall narrowly behind. That stands to reason. That's not the basis for most statistical critiques of Biden's "win", however. For instance, do you not find it odd that Biden generally under-performed Hillary in urban areas (like NYC), but not in the key counties in battleground states he needed to over-perform in?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, in response to your question:
ReplyDelete"do you not find it odd that Biden generally under-performed Hillary in urban areas (like NYC), but not in the key counties in battleground states he needed to over-perform in?"
Not at all. First, the amount of ad money thrown into the battleground states raised the urgency for folks in those counties to get out to vote (not to mention that those counties had been singled out in 2016).
Second, the story that Biden underperformed Clinton in most urban areas is just not true. He outperformed Clinton in Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose and Phoenix, for example.
The claim about Biden underperforming Clinton came from the Gateway Pundit, not exactly a reliable source.
Fair enough, Rod. I checked, and the picture in urban counties is indeed cloudier than many have suggested.
ReplyDeleteDoes it not bother you, even a little, that in a year when mail-in voting spiked massively, the safeguards that are meant to protect the integrity of such votes were considerably relaxed? You don't perceive any self-interest in that...and you don't think it could have increased the amount of fraud?
Dr. Waddy, first, I don't agree with your assumption that there was fraud. Second, mail-in voting increased because of the pandemic, which helped facilitate our having the most people vote ever. Increasing participation strengthens the democracy. It doesn't decrease it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the charges of fraud are just that -- charges.
So I guess you're saying that the safeguards against fraud (which WERE weakened) aren't relevant, because fraud doesn't exist? No one ever votes twice? No one ever votes in a place where they no longer live? No non-citizen has ever voted? Or maybe, in your heart of hearts, you know all these propositions are nonsense, but you don't care, because what "fraud" there is benefits your side, so no biggie?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, does voter fraud exist? Yes, in an extremely limited amount. The Brennan Center examined almost a billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014 and found about 2500 instances of actual voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, even if the safeguards against voter fraud were weakened, that does not mean it occurred.
Rod, my guess is those are the instances of voter fraud that have been isolated and perhaps prosecuted, but the vast majority of the time our elections are conducted on the honor system. For instance, it's literally illegal to require proof of citizenship, so how do we know that non-citizens aren't voting? Simple: they checked a box on a form... Let me put it another way: how many Trump associates have been convicted of "collusion" or "treason"? Not a whole lot! Does that mean it's silly to raise the possibility of collusion or treason? Apparently your side doesn't think so...
ReplyDelete