Trump knew he lost the election?

I don’t think he lost

The cornerstone of Jack Smith’s indictment against the former President is that he took actions to challenge the election despite knowing that he lost the election. According to Special Counsel Smith, Trump knew there was no fraud for two reasons: Bill Barr, Christopher Krebs, and many other knowledgeable government officials told him he lost. In addition, there was (and is) no evidence of significant fraud. For those reasons, Trump had to know, according to Smith, that his actions were supported by a big lie.

I have a problem with Smith’s reasoning 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. I will outline part of that research here.

First, however, we need to discuss a couple of those knowledgeable government officials who, according to Jack Smith, educated Trump regarding the absence of election fraud.

Are these government officials credible?

William 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 effected a different outcome in the election.

That statement is treated as gospel by the left, and is considered to be acid-proof evidence indicating that there was no election fraud. The reality, however, is that the statement could not reflect evidence of any fraud found after November 13^th (just 10 days after the election). Here’s why.

Six days after the election (November 9^th) Barr issued a memo to his Elections Crimes Branch (ECB), telling the small staff that they had his approval to investigate any significant and credible allegations of election crimes that came to their attention. That innocuous memo seemed so outrageous to the director of the ECB, Richard Pilger, that he quit in a huff that very day. He explained his action in a pompous email to colleagues:

Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications, and in accord with the best tradition of the John C. Keeney Award for Exceptional Integrity and Professionalism (my most cherished Departmental recognition), I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of the Election Crimes Branch

Four days later, the rest of the ECB staff wrote to Barr, asking him to rescind his original memo because, after a whopping 4 days of investigation, they had found no crimes. Thus, the Barr statement, which was issued on December 1^st, reflected only 4 days of investigation — at most.

Christopher Krebs, a man of questionable competence and honesty

Like William Barr, Krebs has one of the go-to quotes that main-stream media cite ad nauseam:

The November 3^rd election was the most secure in American history....[W]e 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 (CISA), did not possess.

Look again at the words of Krebs. Did he limit his proclamation to the work of his agency, which was focused on the detection of cyber security threats — primarily from foreign sources? Or, does he imply that there was no fraud in the election?

In the view of Senator Rand Paul, Krebs was very misleading. If you want some amusement, watch Krebs squirm in silence as Paul calls him out for his disingenuous declaration. These words, spoken by Rand Paul, are in a video on c-span (@1:26:41).

[I]f 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 upset a lot of people on our side. It’s that they are taking your statement to mean, oh well, there was no problem in the election. I don’t think you have examined any of the problems that we have heard here.

In response to Senator Paul, Krebs said nothing, and simply sat with arms folded. After more than an hour went by, Senator Rob Portman reminded Krebs of Paul’s statement, and Krebs finally confessed: “We absolutely were not...speaking to the fraud aspect.”

We also must question the competence of Krebs and his agency. After Krebs was fired, two significant cyber security fiascos were discovered. They both took place under the nose of Christopher Krebs and CISA.

Two Iranian hackers were charged with “successfully hacking into a state computer election system, stealing voter registration data and using it to carry out a cyber intimidation campaign that targeted GOP members of Congress, Trump campaign officials and Democrat voters in the November 2020 election.” The Iranians, who posed as “Proud Boys,” managed to steal data for more than 100,000 voters.

Then we found out (due to the work of a private company and not based on the work of CISA) that one of the largest hacks in world history had been going on for months under the nose of Christopher Krebs. If Krebs and CISA missed the huge Solar Winds hack and the Iranian hack, why should anyone assume they couldn’t miss other cyber intrusions?

There is no evidence of significant 2020 election fraud?

Let’s turn now directly to evidence of fraud and irregularities — the ones that Jack Smith doesn’t think exist.

Georgia rejection rate collapse

In Georgia, the collapse of its mail-in ballot rejection rates was, and is, likely evidence of fraud. 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 1/18^th of the rate for 2016. That added at least 78,000 ballots (suspicious ones) to the vote count. Who decided that the 78,000 votes were valid and should be counted? That would be the election 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 1/128^th of the state-wide rate for 2016. Despite that preposterously low rate, the Georgia Secretary of State blocked, and continues to block, any external review of Fulton county mail-in paper ballots.

Fulton County’s impossible ballots

I just said that a review of Fulton County paper ballots has been continuously blocked by the Georgia Secretary of State. However, a dedicated nonprofit organization (VoterGA.org) managed to get some low-resolution ballot images of Fulton’s ballots. The findings are astonishing:

1. 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.

2. 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.)

3. 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 Brad Raffensperger’s basement.

Those are just 3 of the 15 findings that were itemized by VoterGA. See video presentation @27:00

Michigan had an illegal election

In 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 — 4 months after the election. That is when a judge ruled that Jocelyn Benson had broken the law. Due to her actions, the Michigan election results should be decertified.

More ballots than voters in Pennsylvania

In violation of PA law (25 PA. Stat. §3154), the election was certified with a massive excess of ballots over voters, and that is an irrefutable fact. To be clear, I am talking about the excess of ballots over registered voters who actually voted (not the excess over all registered voters).  

The 202,000 voter deficit was a key reason many Republicans, including at least 16 members of the Pennsylvania Assembly, wanted Vice President Pence to delay announcement of the electors for 10 days. They naively thought there is supposed to be just one ballot for every voter. Details, details.

Months after the election was certified, there remained an excess of ballots over voters. A fine organization, Verity Vote, attempted to shed light on the matter by preparing a detailed analysis based upon information obtained from numerous Right to Know requests. Verity Vote estimated that, as of early 2021, the voter deficit was about 121,000. Later, I submitted my own Right to Know requests. Based on the updated information produced from those requests, and generously interpreting the information in the most favorable way for the Secretary of State, my estimate was 91,000. Either way, the deficit is substantially more than Biden’s official winning margin. Verity’s analysis is found here.

Jesse Morgan and his tractor trailer with ballots going from New York to Pennsylvania

There is information that may corroborate the voter deficit we just discussed. Jesse Morgan was a subcontractor tractor trailer driver for the U.S. Postal Service. He has consistently stated that he transported up to 280,000 completed ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, shortly before the election.

The Post Office Inspector General (OIG) investigated, and in its highly-redacted “Closing Memorandum,” the OIG does not deny that Morgan was a subcontractor truck driver who took mail from Bethpage to Harrisburg, and then to Lancaster. In addition, the OIG acknowledges that a contractor in Rochester, New York printed 650,000 general election ballots that somehow got to the Philadelphia area before the election (450,000 ballots to Philadelphia County and 200,000 to Chester County).

Here is the fascinating part. In explaining how the printing company delivered those ballots to the Pennsylvania counties, the OIG states:

[Redacted name of printing company] explained, but could not confirm, the ballots for both PA BOEs [Pennsylvania Boards of Elections] were most likely delivered to those respective locations by their delivery trucks, or entered in the mail stream locally in Rochester, NY (emphasis added). 

So, the printing company produced 650,000 general election ballots, which were probably sold for a great amount of money. Yet, that company didn’t know — a year and a half after later — how it managed to get the ballots into Pennsylvania? Did it use its own trucks, the postal service, or a flying carpet? See Closing Memorandum, page 12.

Even more amazing is the fact that the OIG could not figure out whether or not the Post Office took the 650,000 ballots into Pennsylvania. Maybe it did, and maybe it didn’t. I guess the Post Office doesn’t use “tracking.”

Arizona evidence of 204,000 harvested ballots

In Maricopa County, a panel of 6 people, including 3 document examiners, determined that 12 percent of sampled mail-in ballots appeared to be phony. It was a 6 to 0 decision that implies that 204,000 mail-in ballots were phony, county-wide. That would be almost 20 times Biden’s winning margin. No one has successfully challenged this state of the art test, prepared by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.

Arizona and the phony overseas military vote

Imagine this: In a county where Trump received about 49 percent of the vote and Biden got about 51 percent, the overseas military and citizens vote split like this: Trump 5 percent and Biden 95%. 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 video @1:53.

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 DOJ in Washington, but the DOJ isn’t talking. (I’ve tried to get information repeatedly.) An anonymous whistleblower 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.

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 DC, 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.