George Rebane
This will most likely be the last edition of ‘Voter Fraud’. In a correspondence with a reader I asked if he was aware of any site that served as a clearing house for the hundreds of voter fraud reports, affidavits, and suits filed from all over the country – in short, where can we go to see all the publicly declared and gathered evidence alleging voter fraud. He got back to me with this excellent compendium that lists them all and updates the list daily. The site is called https://hereistheevidence.com/ – enjoy.
[5dec20 update] Not set in stone. A lot of the stuff our Left and its lamestream put out about the post-election and its scheduled milestones is simply not true. Here is a piece that explains the matter and links to the related constitutional research document prepared by the Election Integrity Project.
And this editorial – 'With Our Election System Under Assault, Americans Need to Speak Up' – in the Epoch Times pretty well sums up a lot of the country's feelings about the very polarized debate about election fraud.
[6dec20 update] More evidence on the astronomically low probability of obtaining the claimed and/or certified Trump/Biden election results. Anyone who claims to be technically astute in probabilistics will immediately call to question what the so-called ‘non-polling metrics’ indicate about the likelihood of fraud in the election’s aftermath. Patrick Basham of the Democracy Institute did an extensive interview with Mark Levin of FN (here) where he pointed out the anomalies in these metrics which have historically been 100% reliable in identifying the winner of presidential elections.
Suddenly, this time everything went haywire as ALL the metrics pointed to a Trump win, but were nullified with the afterhours arrival of truckloads of mail-in ballots which statistically stunk to high heaven. For example, what do you think of boxes of uncreased mail-in ballots (i.e. NOT mailed) each of whose vote counts came up repeatedly and exactly Biden 50.5% and Trump 49.5%? And other such goings on were apparent in many vote count sessions across the key battleground states.
Basham explained that there are "a dozen or more of these metrics … [that] have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election. … Those metrics, include party registration trends, how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, [and] how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion polls. … In 2016, they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling. That was again the case in 2020. So, if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate, for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others." (emphasis mine)
Were such infinitesimally low probabilities to obtain in any other endeavor, every reasonable person familiar with the issues would say that there definitely has occurred a massive anomaly. It is the consideration of such “deeply puzzling” evidence, when added to all the other affidavits submitted under penalty of perjury, that persuades me that this was an historically fraudulent election the (most likely criminal) vagaries of which need to be investigated and brought to light. (more here)
Did China effectively buy Dominion Voting Systems one month before the election? The fraud smoke about this election is sure getting thicker by the day. Not only do the Chinese dominate the board of Dominion’s holding company, but “in a previous voter fraud lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell, a former military intelligence official claims in an affidavit that Chinese operatives had access to Dominion Voting Systems in several key states.” (more here)
[10dec20 update] Now here’s a shot in the shorts of all those on the Left telling the nation a slew of Big Lies about the integrity of the Dominion (Vote Editing) Software. ‘Election Supervisor Shows on Video How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes’. This should renew some interest in the courts now chewing on election fraud suits. The evidence tsunami is of historical proportions. I know of no legal battle fought in my lifetime in which the plaintiffs have had such a profusion of evidence.
rebanesruminations.com 
174 responses to “Voter Fraud 5.0 … until the fat lady sings (updated 10dec20)”
George, how can at least half the people in the land understand the fraud cases when Trump never garnered above 47 percent of the total vote in the entire country? If 70 percent of 47 percent believe Trump really won, what is the total percent of the country that thinks Trump really won? lol. I do not believe it would be 50 percent plus of the country. By my math. I could be wrong.
Are you really going to continue to host this forum for years in the future and let your doting dolts angrily rant and rave for another 8 years? Gets kinda embarrassing after awhile, dontcha think? I suggest sticking to your commentary ripping into PGE, that is something we all have in common in NC. Universal agreement.
LikeLike
“I think the supreme courts going to hear the Texas versus Pennsylvania case. I think they’re going to find that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Michigan all had significant problems with their election with fraud and with lack of ballot security. ”
Mr. Barry Pruett.
LOL
LikeLike
Burp
Wingwatcher: pleasee, control yourself. At least try to. Half-lit again, on a Tuesday night no less. I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Yes, you started this time. No excuses. Goodness gracious mon, control yourself. Drop the roc. Take up meditation or something. Do you really want the world to see the demons in your closet that you wrestle with?
Come on, man.
LikeLike
Exit question? What would General Chuck Yeager do?
“so obvious and he totally pnked you.”
Oh my, our Gregory got totally pnkrd in the you know where. Pnkrd? Mercy.
“I doubt Yeager ever tossed out a lead ballon like NC Wingnut just did.”
Ok Doc, I will back out until I have something on the topic at hand. I will try to stay focused
Mea cuppacino.
LikeLike
Who said anything about the Supreme Court disenfranchising anyone? Lol. You need to learn how to read with that one drunk eye open. We said quite the opposite. The SC cannot and should not fashion a remedy of that sort. Even the Texas complaint (which you obviously have not read) states as much. The power to decide and to sort this out lies solely with the state legislatures. Florida at this planned out in 2000 prior to the Supreme Court stopping the recount on equal protection grounds. The Texas case is it. Bottom of the ninth, two outs, 1-1 count. We will know by Monday. I read the complaint again last night. Constitutionally the argument makes sense. It is creative, but I am not sure Texas was aggrieved. We’ll see.
As far as Biden being president and with 40% of the population legitimately believing the election was rigged, we are at an American crossroads. Interesting times.
LikeLike
RWW
“over and out” is a Hollywierdism… doesn’t exist in radio communications… It’s either “over” or “out”.
And you misspelled “ignoramus, n. An ignorant person; especially, one who lacks necessary knowledge; an ignorant pretender to knowledge.”
That’s you to a “T”… and this strange fascination you have with a minor aircraft accident 14 years ago that didn’t hurt anyone, didn’t destroy the airplane or cause any property damage and wasn’t blamed on the pilot by the NTSB wouldn’t be front and center time and time again if you had anything else to bitch about.
Just who are you? Could be Pellini, Ben Emery, Michael P. Anderson. Someone with a grudge.
We shall see who the Supremes decide to “disenfranchise”, a misuse of the word. I voted for Yorgy Yorguson and so expected my vote to be thrown away as a matter of course.
LikeLike
Posted by: Roberta X Cross | 08 December 2020 at 05:04 PM
Toys for Tots you say. An idea …..just as Grampy Joe said. Just an “idea”…..like Antifa…..just an idea.
No animals were harmed during the preparation of this statement.
……and Qanon told me to say that!
LikeLike
It has become obvious now that Trump IS QAnon. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.
LikeLike
Arizona’s Bat💩 crazies are flipping out!
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/08/arizona-republican-party-asks-if-followers-die-election-president-donald-trump/6488952002/
LikeLike
Posted by: D | 09 December 2020 at 06:41 AM
It has become obvious now that Trump IS QAnon. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.
You and “ explanations that makes sense“ have never been in the same room together.
Qanon …..errr Trump…..told me to say that!
LikeLike
@ NC DIPSHIT. Yeger crashed many times. And ALL plenty more expensive.
Smoking crack and meth again at the same time? An NC pastime it seems.
LikeLike
Here’s a good article summarizing and detailing some of the arguments for the Texas versus Pennsylvania suit.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/09/6-things-to-know-about-texass-supreme-court-petition-over-2020s-messed-up-election/
To be clear in the article they’re not advocating one position over another. It’s just a summary of the complaint
LikeLike
Here’s another loss for Trump and his RR followers.
(Reuters) ― The Supreme Court of Nevada rejected an appeal late Tuesday from President Donald Trump’s campaign to overturn the election results in the state, affirming President-elect Joe Biden’s win in one of the battleground states that gave him overall victory.
Trump has become delusional and has lost all connection with reality. Who is the “we” he refers to in this quote?
“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump tweeted.
It was not immediately clear if Trump planned to intervene in his personal capacity or if his campaign would get involved. A campaign spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/529408-trump-says-he-will-intervene-in-texas-election-lawsuit
LikeLike
PaulE 1118am – Another joyous report, wonderful. Can you ascertain if this latest rejection gave any substantive reason for denying the appeal? All of the rejections so far have given only summary denials citing fiat and not stating that the submitted evidence was false. Was this rejection any different?
LikeLike
Why does it matter George? The last one from the Supreme Court was just a no and was a unanimous decision.
Here’s a summary from the Nevada Supremes and a link for you to check out. This was an appeal of an earlier judgement
“Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none. The clerk of this court shall issue the remittitur forthwith. See NRAP 2 (allowing the court to suspend any rules in a particular case except for the time to file a notice of appeal). For these reasons, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED”
https://www.8newsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2020/12/20-44711.pdf
LikeLike
PaulE 1216pm – If at this stage of the discussion you still don’t know why giving substantive reasons for rejection matter, then it’s beyond my meager abilities to further clarify for you the larger issue at play here. Effectively communicating with progressives is a skill I have never mastered (nor do I know of any who have). Humbled once more, I retreat.
LikeLike
George
I gave you specific quotes why the appeal was rejected and a link to the specific statement. They claim there was not evidence that they requested. What more do you need?
LikeLike
Texas has growing number of friends.
https://www.facebook.com/369309166748535/posts/1336810599998382/
LikeLike
A lot of friends @1244 –
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-16-other-states-file-brief-supporting-texas-suit-to-delay-presidential-elector-appointment
😉
LikeLike
Posted by: paul emery | 09 December 2020 at 11:18 AM
Trump has become delusional and has lost all connection with reality. Who is the “we” he refers to in this quote?
Quick…..to the fainting couch!
Jeez Punch he’s got a month to go……relax.
LikeLike
NC 1124pm – It’s not your math, but your having missed the polls which report that the more than 50% in doubt include independents in addition to Trump voters. That’s a totally plausible result and state of affairs given the amount of fraud allegations that the lamestream has not been able to sweep under the carpet.
Don’t know of any “doting dolts” around here. Most certainly I have not been doted to, and happily so. But as with Obama, if Biden continues his tragically configured policies toward autocratic socialism (or worse), then yes, there will be a lot of pushback, including wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garment in these pages. That will go at least as long as I go on. Remember, according to Rebane Doctrine we’re in a race between socialism and the Singularity.
LikeLike
PaulE 1239pm – I and others would like to hear the basis for refuting the presented evidence, instead of simply issuing a fiat statement that they didn’t get the evidence they requested. A (possibly corrupt) court can always request additional evidence that may or not exist. The important part missing is why the submitted evidence is insufficient to prove the case.
And for you, what is hard to understand the CLEAR evidence, citing chapter and verse, that a state conducted its election in contradiction to its own laws and constitution? How come all you guys are silent on such matters in the discussion of election fraud?
LikeLike
George
If the evidence of election fraud is so “clear” as you propose then why then have no courts or law enforcement agencies including the DOJ and FBI, both with Trump appointees as their leaders and the Supreme Court with 3 Trump appointees failed to embrace that concept? Also to the best of my knowledge there have been no State Supreme Courts as well that have ruled in that manner.
LikeLike
Punchy
Mathematics is not a strong suit amongst most law enforcement and justice types. Or public radio news jocks.
LikeLike
gr 219pm
RWW makes a big error in his math and you didn’t catch it… assuming 100% of Democrats think he election was fair.
Rasmussen places 30% of Dems in the camp that it might have been stolen… not that they’re particularly upset at the outcome.
LikeLike
So Gregory you are saying the “justice types” are too ignorant to take on a case of this mathematical complexity. Does that apply to the Supreme Court as well? What are you proposing then as a solution to this systemic ignorance that you describe?
LikeLike
No,Punch, I’m saying “Mathematics is not a strong suit amongst most law enforcement and justice types.” And public radio types with short attention spans.
LikeLike
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2020 at 04:07 PM
So Gregory you are saying the “justice types” are too ignorant to take on a case of this mathematical complexity. Does that apply to the Supreme Court as well? What are you proposing then as a solution to this systemic ignorance that you describe?
Why so whiny Punch? You act like a guy whose side stole an election and who is terrified that he’s going to be found out!
……4….3….2….1….until Punch asks a leading question that allows him time to run to DailyKos for information to reinforce his otherwise feeble arguments!
Why are you acting like a spoiled girl child? Senile Joe hasn’t been denied a second of his sure to be embarrassing (and yet wildly entertaining) reign……but here you are, every day, acting like the Hamburgular!
I begged you to not make me feel sorry for you…..begged you! Was it really so much to ask for you to retain just a shred of dignity and shut up until after your Idiot King is crowned in January?
LikeLike
Paul, what’s important here is that not all courts are present for the same purposes. Accusations of fraud and the like require courts organized as ‘triers of fact’ which description doesn’t describe Supreme Courts of any stripe, no the many Federal District Courts.
That’s why the Tx suit is so important: matters of constitutional law are exactly why we have appellate courts to begin with. I’ve read the Tx suit and it is exactly what the SCOTUS was designed to decide.
On its face, the plaintiff will most likely win, either 5-4 or 6-3 as pointed out above. T
LikeLike
The question, then, is what relief it will grant plaintiffs (now at least 17 states, not just Tx)?
My own undergrad course of the Supremes didn’t have a case exactly like this, so guesswork is required. In general, Barry is likeliest to guess correctly.
A complicating factor is that no one wants to be responsible for the Dims unleashing their paramilitary auxiliaries again.
LikeLike
Like Barry, I think the Supremes will kick it back to the involved State legislatures where it will be as welcome as a turd in a punchbowl. My guess is that rather than overturn an election and declare Trump the winner, they will tend to simply de-certify the election results and offer to hold a new election.
That doesn’t fit the time frame, so with the votes decertified, no one will have 270 votes in the Electoral College and from there, the Constitution takes its course…
LikeLike
My guess is that the dump the whole thing. What a joke. Trumps last stand.
LikeLike
OK wise ass Emery, just under which LAW it states that a judge or a Governor can circumvent a state legislature? Did the state legislatures amend their voter laws? If so,, prove it.
Name the statute that states the same can pick and choose just which laws to follow, and/or ignore.
Just because your boy “O” got away with it,, well you can finish that one…….
LikeLike
Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 December 2020 at 05:33 PM
…….begged you!
LikeLike
One more thing Emery, you seem to forget that der Fuhrer Gavin broke the state Constitution with HIS from behind the desk mandate(law) about a mail ballot for every “registered ” person (with motorvoter who knows how many illegals voted)
A lot of good the ruling was,,, 4 days before the election… How convenient.
You can do your own homework on that one.
LikeLike
L | 09 December 2020 at 05:07 PM
With or without the Supreme Court, some of the states will get involved, and I bet some will punt to the Congress. I think you over estimate me…I have no idea what is gonna happen. Lol.
LikeLike
Paul, try and keep up. If the SC wanted to “dump the whole thing”, that milepost passed many hours ago when they agreed to hear the case and gave defendants until Thurs PM to present defenses. They will issue a ruling on plaintiffs’ claims and I’m saying that plaintiff will prevail. Go read the complaint, ok?
LikeLike
The question, simply put, is: did these states change their election rules ultra vires the US Constitution, which specifies that such changes must be made by the legislature.
In each case, the complaint details how said rules occurred and who did it. The suit includes its own evidence and it’s compelling. Go read it!
LikeLike
Reading court documents is hard!
-Punchy
LikeLike
Greg. I easily burned three hours at work today reading Supreme Court filings as they were getting filed. 😂😂🇺🇸
LikeLike
bp, i thank you for your service…
LikeLike
Hell… Barrister Douchey(Law degree from Crack R.Jack)
hasn’t put forth evidence how goal post moving to is legal, as long as it helps LIBS take down Trump. He claims that the 4TH Amend. changes from state to state. One state ain’t as equal as the other .. According to Douchey.
LikeLike
Lar@507pm, keep on prayin’ maybe your wish will come true.
LikeLike
Thanks, Keach, your best wishes are appreciated. The question of an appropriate remedy seems the toughest decision the Supremes will need to make. Probably, they’ll need to stay the EC vote to give the State legislatures sufficient time to act, as a first act. But beyond that, it will take some courage on the part of those Republicans that control the legislature in each state. That’s why I think they’ll punt…
LikeLike
Solid observation by L. Solid.
LikeLike
Greg 400pm – Don’t understand your reference to math. It seems that selection of inputs is the problem. The main point made is that NC’s calculation didn’t include all the people who may be included in the cohort believing election fraud occurred. It wasn’t only the pro-Trumpers, but also included independents and Democrats, as you point out. Who’s RWW?
LikeLike
Barry @ 5:45pm
“me…I have no idea what is gonna happen. Lol.”
Nobody knows what will happen for certain. Its happening now in the present and we are living it in the moment and don’t have the luxurey of hindsight. In The Now.
SCOTUS is where its at. The nation waits while the fate of oir nation rests in SCOTUS’ loving hands.
Many of the State Courts did Trump a favor by dismissing suits out of hand. Was it MI or PA where the judge did not even accept the evidence, which would have led to motion of discovery. Not to say whoever was suing had a leg to stand on, but to dismiss the case with prejudice and not even allowing the plantiffs to submit evidence. That kicks it up the ladder, assuming any state or lower court wants to touch this hot potato. Don’t put that thing in my lap! No matter what state courts and state election officals say. Thats in the past. Forward! Like in football (and battle), sometimes the playbook is ripped up after the first six-ten plays.
Improv time.
There is a good reason they are called The Supremes.
What is Scotus going to do? You tell me and we will both know.
Exciting times. We are living through Year Zero witnessing live the World Pandemic, the rise of “Socialism”, illiverals,tryanny, the government mandated destruction of the economy, and some other stuff. Oh yeah, the heisting of our free and fair elections. And a VP designate is a lady with an Indian mother and a Jamacian father and she is called an African-American.
Whats going to happen next? Well, if you got one foot in yesterday and another in tomorrow, you end up pissing all over yourself today. One might say pissing on yourself is kinda like our popinjay, but I would never stoop that low. Instead, moi will just nickname him Mr. Rusty Zipper. Fake it til you make it
LikeLike
You know what we never hear from our local progressives? We never hear that dead people didn’t vote. We never hear that the secretaries of State didn’t loosen security procedures in the various states for mail in ballots. We never hear that people didn’t vote twice in Nevada. We never hear that signatures weren’t properly verified in Georgia. There’s no denials from Democrats. The statement is that it wasn’t enough to change the results. If some fraud some fraud is okay, how can you possibly know that there wasn’t enough fraud that could change the election? You can’t expect somebody to root out all the fraud in three weeks. It’s just unreasonable.
LikeLike
Barry
If fraud is so prevalent can you show me a few arrests and convictions ?j
LikeLike
Barry. I have put that question point blank to the dynamic duo.
(and injustice friends) about all the fraud.. ” yes or no!?”
and the 420th Nevada City cricket corp march down Broad St. and take a hard Left on Pine.
So an absence of denial is good for “yup,, there sure as hell is!”
LikeLike