Why It's Not Delusional To Suspect Voter Fraud
Don't let the bastards grind you down.
If you like this post, please subscribe to my Substack right here:
I wasn’t planning on writing this this morning, but I’ve had quite enough gaslighting, thanks very much.
I received a DM today from someone I’ve been friendly with online for quite some time. Someone who has openly stated (surprise!) that he was planning to vote for Joe Biden.
“These guys claiming [election] fraud,” he wrote, “who as of yet have offered no evidence, aren't exactly morally upstanding citizens. I think you're being had again by another cult, complete with sexual predation. The guy Giuliani featured at his bizarre Four Seasons Total Landscaping talk is a convicted pedophile.”
First of all, I find the insinuation that I’m such a rube I’m being “had again by another cult” — a reference to my time spent with the now-disgraced Legionaries of Christ AS A CHILD — absolutely insulting. My experience with that cult is precisely why I’m skeptical of all cults of personality, and that includes the one that exists in some quarters around President Trump. As I tweeted the other day, “I really, really, really don't like it when people speak about Trump -- whom I continue to support -- in quasi-messianic terms.”
I’ve railed at length against tribalism and weaponization of misinformation on both the Left and the Right quite a bit this year, and this infantilizing nonsense that anyone who thinks something is Rotten in Philadelphia (and Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc.) must be too dumb or too brainwashed to see reality is not going to fly with me. Nor should it with you.
We need to be realistic, but we need to be thorough. Let’s adjudicate the hell out of this mess and see where it takes us.
Rules For Radicals - Always in Play
My interlocutor also included a link to this story about Darryl Brooks — his alleged “pedophile.” Brooks is a political activist who lent his voice as a “Poll watcher” to the claims of Philadelphia voter fraud.
The story claims that Brooks, “the first person Rudy Giuliani…called up as a witness to baseless allegations of vote counting shenanigans in Philadelphia during a press conference last week is a sex offender who for years has been a perennial candidate in New Jersey.”
Note well the logical fallacy in that statement: it’s called begging the question. To beg the question is not, as is commonly believed, to engage in behavior that raises a question. It is rather to include the conclusion of your argument in the premise itself. “This logically incoherent argument,” says the website Your Logical Fallacy Is, “often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given.” In this case, that assumption lies in the claim that the allegations of voter fraud are “baseless” before the investigation has even been completed. And the more it is repeated, the more people begin to believe it.
The story about Brooks is, of course, nakedly political. Political in the way that opposition research always is: find something damning about a person who represents a political threat, then follow the Alinsky playbook: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
And what could hurt people more than these charges against Brooks? “Brooks was incarcerated in the 1990s on charges of sexual assault, lewdness and endangering the welfare of a minor for exposing himself to two girls ages 7 and 11, according to news accounts.”
The point of attempting to discredit Giuliani’s “first” witness is to demoralize those who put stock in Giulani’s ability to litigate this case. The idea here is to make people feel some variation of, “Seriously? The best witness he could find to put in front of the cameras was a child molester?” It makes Giulani appear either careless or incompetent, neither of which inspire hope in a positive outcome.
Of course, the Brooks story isn’t that simple. I found it suspicious, so I did a little digging, and before long came across a story from The Philadelphia Tribune in 2012 entitled, “Parole board harasses Trenton man.” The story is quite sympathetic to Brooks, and details how New Jersey Parole Board officials tried to coerce him into admitting guilt in his alleged crime of indecent exposure, even though he has always maintained his innocence of the charges — charges the Tribune describes as “improbable,” after a trial that was “evidence-deficient.”
But it gets worse:
Brooks’ alleged crime took place in daylight on a busy street inside a then bustling North Trenton public housing project directly outside the window of a police mini-station.
Yet, no one saw this lewd act except two young girls — suspiciously the daughters of a drug dealer targeted by Brooks’ anti-drug activism.
That drug dealer’s daughters provided the only evidence producing Brooks’ jury verdict conviction.
Police couldn’t or didn’t produce any other eyewitnesses to Brooks’ act despite scores of people occupying the three dozen-plus apartments overlooking where Brooks reportedly masturbated at that housing project where Brooks, then a biblical college student, grew up.
Since Brooks regularly assailed Trenton political corruption before his arrest Rabbi Geller believes Brooks’ political enemies exploited that suspicious arrest to “shut him up” with incarceration which “ruined the life of a remarkable individual” by making him a life-long sex offender that blocks things like employment opportunities.
Brooks was — and still is — an opponent of political corruption in Philadelphia. He was convicted on specious charges despite a lack of evidence and a personally motivated accuser. And local officials knew they could trot out the “history” of this troublesome figure any time he made himself inconvenient again.
I don’t know if Brooks was innocent, but this is all very convenient for the DNC.
But even if he were guilty of this crime over 20 years ago, it would change nothing about the facts of what he saw as an election observer in 2020.
This is ad hominem, pure and simple. Don’t let it dissuade you.
What About the Voter Fraud?
Let’s just get this out of the way: those who are claiming that there’s “no basis” for the claims of voter fraud are simply not looking at the evidence being produced. There is clear evidence of at least some fraud, and of even more irregularity that might point to fraud.
Anyone who doesn’t want a contested election to hang over this country for the next four years, with all the rancor that will produce, should be eager to investigate and litigate any such claims.
Instead, they pretend that it’s all just silly, and that nobody should even bother taking it seriously. They have allegedly kept election observers out of reach of “meaningful access” to the process in Pennsylvania, in defiance of a federal court order. According to the NY Post’s Miranda Devine:
The Trump campaign’s legal team, led by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, claims that, in Pennsylvania alone, 600,000 ballots are in question because they were counted without any poll-watchers observing to ensure they were legitimate, as state law requires.
In Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Giuliani says that “50 to 60 poll-watchers … will all testify that they were uniformly deprived of their right to inspect any single part of the mail-in ballots … Not a single one was inspected as the law required. Even when a court order was obtained to allow the Republican inspectors to get six feet closer, they moved the people counting the ballots six further feet away.
They are dismissive, they are engaging in gaslighting, and they are seeking to obstruct.
What do they have to hide?
Some people — we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say not all of them are disingenuous — keep asking where the evidence is of voter fraud. I’ll now go through a few of the indicators — and I say indicators because they’ll only amount to proof when they are investigated and verified. So pay attention to the links in the text below if you want to be able to provide substantiation. This will by no means be exhaustive.
In Pennsylvania, a challenge to Secretary Boockvar’s deadline extension for absentee voters to provide missing proof of identification was found unlawful by an appellate court:
No less a figure than Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had to intervene in Pennsylvania as well to segregate ballots received after the statutory deadline from the ballots received on time - a signal that these late ballots may well not survive a legal challenge.
Allegations remain outstanding that Postmaster Rob Weisenbach nonetheless directed postal workers to bring ballots after the deadline to him, and that these ballots were being backdated.
PA also ruled that they could not reject ballots based on signature mismatches, something that Trafalger Group pollster Robert Cahaly described as "baked-in" fraud.
There’s video of something very odd happening with the PA vote as well. On a segment of election coverage from CNN, nearly 20,000 votes are removed from the Trump tally and the exact same number are given to Biden:
Nevada has sent a criminal referral to the US Attorney General alleging more than 3,000 counts of voter fraud in the state. Underage voters, non-resident voters, and dead voters are being alleged to have participated in the 2020 election. There are claims of “at least 9,000 non-Nevadans” having “voted in Nevada":
And there’s a new sworn affidavit on this today here:
A number of folks have pointed out that the six-figure ballot drops that are 100% in favor of Biden are statistically impossible. More statisticians are going over election data, sniffing for irregularities in ways too nerdy for me to understand. This thread was particularly interesting.
Sworn affidavits from election workers in multiple locations allege unlawful backdating of ballots, lack of matching signatures, voter coaching, non-eligible voter counting, etc.
A lawsuit in Arizona alleges that Maricopa County (the largest in the state) disregarded instructions on how to handle irregular ballots, taking the choice from voters on whether to fill out a new ballot or “spoil” their ballot (let it go through as is). The suit “includes a signed affidavit from a Mesa woman identifying herself as a credentialed poll observer who said she had seen poll workers ‘regularly and consistently’ advising voters who received an error screen to ‘simply press the green button on the tabulator without explaining why the ballot had been rejected or the consequences of overriding the tabulator’s determination.’”
There’s also the situation as reported by US House Candidate Josh Barnett that thousands of votes were cast for Biden on two-page long Arizona ballots on which no other candidates were marked:
Errors related to voting machine software led to the changing of thousands of votes from Red to Blue in one county in Michigan, and there are questions of the same “glitch” having happened in other areas of the state or even in other states.
Also in Michigan, tens of thousands of “unsealed, unsecured ballots—all cast for Democrats—arrived in vehicles with out-of-state license plates in Michigan’s Wayne County at 4:30 a.m. on the morning after Election Day, according to a lawsuit filed on Nov. 9.”
Dead people have "voted" in multiple states - some of the names have been released - and investigations of how widespread this mode of fraud has actually been are ongoing.
None of these facts -- and they ARE facts -- speaks to the incredibly suspicious circumstantial evidence we’ve gathered over the past few months that calls the official narrative into question. That narrative states that somehow a candidate who didn't even bother campaigning, who is clearly suffering from mental degradation, who is wildly and manifestly corrupt, who couldn't draw crowds to any of his events, who picked one of the most disliked members of the Democratic party as his running mate, and who is the favored candidate of Communist China somehow got more votes than any presidential candidate in history.
So no, my “friend” is not correct in thinking I am so naïve and unscrupulous that I'd be taken in by a cult again at this point in my life, let alone one orbiting a political figure. My experience with such things is why I have a deep and abiding skepticism about celebrity, personality-driven organizations, and…well, pretty much every institution.
But perhaps even more insulting is the idea that to question all these red flags is to somehow partake in a delusion.
I see an overwhelming number of indicators pointing to a need for investigation. The truth can ultimately only come as a result of litigation, if fair litigation is possible in a nation that has become so comfortable with lawlessness.
It’s important to note, too, that the establishment info-dealers are hard at work repeating the same propaganda: they insist that all such concerns are baseless, that allegations lack evidence, etc. I was really struck by how much of this kind of aggressive gatekeeping is going on as I was researching links to include in this piece. It’s even worse than usual out there right now, and that will only erode trust even further as people shift towards following their instincts over listening to “experts.”
I have to be brutally honest: I’m not confident that Trump will prevail. I know that my realism strikes many as pessimistic, but I don’t believe the collective positive energy of true believers will push this thing over the top. Only the facts will, and they are being weighed and measured.
I am, however, confident that some fraudulent activity has taken place, and that at least some of it will, consequently, be discovered. I don’t know if it will tip the balance, but I certainly hope it may — and that it will lead to electoral reform to prevent a debacle like this from ever happening again.
I am absolutely certain that no matter what happens, the country is worse off for this disaster. The psychological construct being impressed upon our populace right now by an unscrupulous, propagandistic media and our leftist political class is that Biden has won (an assertion that nations such as China, Mexico, and Russia refuse to accept until the election process is officially resolved) is creating a situation that will grow more and more unstable should the courts wind up reversing the process. People are growing increasingly invested in this “reality”; if it turns out to be illusory, many won’t be able to accept it.
For the globalist Left, this is a win/win: they either have the electoral victory with which to promote their agenda, or they get the mass destabilization and unrest that will further their attempts to destroy what’s left of this country and replace it with a system of their choosing.
But even so, if somehow Trump were to prevail, it'd be a far less certain shift towards dystopia than what we'll get if Biden “becomes president.”
I have to put that last bit in quotes, since we all know he won't be the one running the country.