By Anthony J. Ciani

Many have dismissed election fraud based on claims that there is no fraud, that the amount is small and incapable of changing results, and that the amount required to change results would necessitate an easily discovered coordinated effort.  Three months ago, these same people claimed that President Trump would steal the election through fraud.  They produced nothing to back their assertions, but they could have made estimates to show the minimal capacity for fraud.  How much fraud could there be, and can it be corrected before the vote is certified?

If election officials are in on the fraud, as the news about Dominion and the exposed shenanigans imply, it could be so extreme that 90 of 100 people vote for Trump and 100 votes are certified for Biden.  There would be 90 angry people saying, “I voted for Trump,” but fraud committed by election officials is almost impossible to correct.  The FBI has election crimes branches in all of its offices, but as Richard Pilger lamented, had a 40-year-old policy of investigating fraudafter certification.  Attorney General William Barr recently changed that policy, but probably too little too late.

Corrupt elections are eventually audited, forensically investigated, and proven, and people go to jail.  I have heard dozens of retired Chicago employees brag about their role in frauding Kennedy into the presidency.  The subsequent indictment of 677 officials adds credibility to their claims.  Chicago saw 100,000 fraudulent votes fabricated in the 1982 Illinois elections, thanks again to corrupt election officials who went to jail.  Philadelphia, presently at the center of attention, also has its share of corrupt election officials.

Dominion’s systems could turn even honest election officials into unknowing fraudsters.  What kind of election software offers the ability to algorithmically alter votes as a feature?  It is a part of the auditing and testing system, but could easily be abused or misused.  And the Adjudication Module lets a “team” decide the voter’s intent.  We’re still at hanging chads?  What kind of election equipment company is named Dominion?

But what if the election officials were honest and Dominion free, and the fraud had to pass casual muster following proper procedure?

Impersonation

Walk sheets direct campaign workers to the homes of strong party supporters and regular voters, and contain the names, ages, phone numbers, addresses, party affiliations and voting histories of every registered voter.  This information is publicly accessible, available for purchase or obtained through campaigns.

Impersonation is one easy way to fraud.  I have heard a few stories from election judges who encountered impersonators.  Estimating a half hour to travel to a different polling place and vote, a fraudster could cast 24 votes on election day, with no need for fake ID.  Under the rules of many states, the fraudster walks in, proclaims their assumed name, scribbles and votes.  On the rare occasion that the signature is challenged, the fraudster bails.  Hitting 10 early voting locations every day, one fraudster might add another 300 to 400 undetectable votes.

Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved away and are likely still registered, and it accumulates, and it shows in the walk sheets.  The fraudsters cross-reference the voting history lists and moving lists.  There are plenty of stale voters, enough that over 3% of the vote could be fraudulent through impersonation at the polling place.  A crew of 10 fraudsters could cast 4,000 ballots in a single county.

Three counties of 10-person crews impersonating voters, and Biden wins Georgia and Wisconsin.  Apart from fraud, impersonation also exposes innocent people to potential prosecution for double-voting.

Double-voting

Voters can take the fraud into their own hands by casting mail-in or absentee ballots where they have previously lived.  Forensic audits reveal low amounts of it, maybe 1 in 4,000 votes, a few thousand across a large state.  Double-voting depends strongly on the ethics and motivations of the fraudster, tempered by fear of prosecution after being caught in routine audits.  With Trump, motivation was likely strong.

Mail fraud — Interception

The most vulnerable part of our election system is the mailed ballot.  The signed outer envelope has almost no security to protect the ballot inside, and there is no security to protect the envelope in its voyage.  There are many ways to commit fraud with mailed ballots.  Imagine a fraudster calling ahead with a message like, “Hi, this is Mike with the Lehigh County Republicans.  Don’t trust the Post Office with your ballot.  This Wednesday, we will be in your neighborhood between 1 and 3 to collect ballots and make sure they are counted.”  Ever the dutiful Republican, your 80-year-old mother fills out her ballot and Mike shows up at her door, just as promised.  Working with a driver, three minutes per stop, up to 20 or more ballots per hour, 160 per day, up to 6400 strong Republican ballots disposed of throughout the mail voting period.  A crew of amateurs did 900 in a week.

Mail fraud — Flipping

But instead of disposing of those Republican ballots, the envelopes can be steamed open and the ballots replaced with Democrat ballots.  Steaming and stuffing an envelope might take about five minutes, so add one more person and 100 ballots are flipped per day, 4000 flipped during mail voting.  A three-person crew eliminates 6400 Trump ballots and gives Biden 4000, a 10,400 ballot swing.  If the driver and collector put in some extra hours to steam ballots, all 6400 could be flipped to yield a 12,800 ballot swing, with just three people and a robocall.

Restoring the election

Apart from punishing corruption months or years later, when against corrupt officials there appears little to do.  Despite apparently losing the election, was Kennedy removed from office and Nixon sworn in?  There is hope for Trump, but the courts must act uncharacteristically aggressively toward election fraud, ordering forensic inspections and audits at even the appearance of fraud.

Impersonation and double-voting can be detected through auditing, but those ballots are mixed in the box, identical to the others.  Some states may have ways to filter them, assuming they are discovered before certification.

Intercepted ballots are gone.  Ten people vanish 50,000 Trump votes.  Biden wins.  Get over it.  Even if people report, “these guys pretended to be Republicans and took my ballot,” there is no replacement ballot.  Flipped ballots are likely unofficial copies and might be forensically detected, if a court orders it.  If Trump is only 40,000 votes down and there are 200,000 fake Biden ballots (from a crew of 48 people), catching a fifth of those would change the result.  Hopefully, where the election officials stayed open late behind closed doors to receive fake ballots, the courts will order a forensic inspection prior to certification. 

The Democrat and media assertions are bunk.  Fraud occurs on scales that easily change outcomes and involves conspiracies that are discovered.  In 2020, there are dozens of potentially corrupt jurisdictions that have acted suspiciously, and dozens of other unconfirmed allegations, and any one of them could significantly change the result.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/how_much_fraud_could_there_be.html

The whole insanity of pathologically exaggerated consideration for the “religion of peace”, whose believers like to see themselves as victims and take special rights for granted, whose refusal is promptly reinterpreted as “discrimination” or Islamophobia, was shown by a police operation in Mannheim yesterday – in response to a bomb threat against the Yavuz Sultan Selim Mosque in Mannheim.According to the radio station “Südwestrundfunk”, an anonymous threatening call was made to the largest mosque in Baden-Württemberg. The police, who were immediately called in, had the mosque cleared and cordoned off the surrounding area.But then came the best:the dog deployed to detect explosives first had to cover its paws before it could be let into the prayer room – so that it would not contaminate the ground.For such multicultural cautiousness, to which apparently at least as much importance was given here as to thwarting the threatened attack, there was immediate compliments from the leadership of the local mosque association: the police officers had reacted “extremely sensitively”; that the carpet to which the faithful were bowing was not “polluted” by the dog was “very culturally sensitive”One was ” deeply touched”.Apparently, the German police, increasingly obsessed with anti-racist confessions of guilt, were more afraid that a “Haram” explosive dog could hurt the feelings and sensitivities of Muslims (again) than they were before the bomb itself. By the way, it was a false alarm, so the deployment was unnecessary – but as an anecdote, where in the best Germany of all times the priorities of the authorities are defined, it is always a suitable one.If the Islamic communities based in Germany – especially the devout Muslims who have a socio-political agenda – could only show a small fraction of the cultural sensitivity for the traditions, values and customs of their German host country instead of constantly demanding privileges and consideration for themselves (while at the same time remaining silent on terror and religious violence in the name of Islam), a lot would be done.

journalistenwatch.com/2020/11/14/die-islamisierung-sprengstoffhund/

The Austrian government has presented a draft online hate speech law, the Communication Platforms Act, which, if passed, will limit free speech in the country. The Austrian government writes in the introduction to its proposed law:

“The main reason for the development of this draft Act is the worrying development that the Internet and social media, in addition to the advantages that these new technologies and communication channels provide, have also established a new form of violence, and hate on the Internet is increasing in the form of insults, humiliation, false information and even threats of violence and death. The attacks are predominantly based on racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and homophobic motives. A comprehensive strategy and a set of measures are required that range from prevention to sanctions. This strategy is based on the two pillars of platform responsibility and victim protection, with the present draft Act relating to ensuring platform responsibility”.

The proposed law is modelled on Germany’s much criticized NetzDG law, also known as the censorship law, which came into effect in January 2018 and requires social media companies to delete or block any online unlawful content within 24 hours or 7 days at the most, or face fines of up to 50 million euros. In May 2020, France adopted a similar law, known as the “Avia law“, also modelled on the German NetzDG law, which requires online platforms to remove reported “hateful content” — incitement to hatred, or discriminatory insult, on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability — within 24 hours. Failure to do so could result in fines of up to 1.25 million euros or 4% of the platform’s global revenue.

Similarly, the Austrian law requires “obviously” unlawful content to be deleted within 24 hours and other unlawful content within seven days. Failure to do so could lead to fines of up to 10 million euros ($12 million). Platforms must provide a reporting function for such content and react immediately to notifications.

Just like Germany’s NetzDG law, the Austrian censorship law privatizes state censorship by requiring social media platforms to censor their users on behalf of the state. If the proposed law is passed, the freedom of speech of Austrians online will be subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities, such as Twitter, Google and Facebook.

With Austria’s draft online hate speech law, yet another European country is taking another step towards making online censorship an institutionalized feature of European hate speech laws. In Austria, according to Reuters, a surprising number of private associations would like to see even wider measures implemented: Austria’s association of digital service providers, ISPA, representing more than 200 companies including Google Austria and Facebook Germany welcomed the initiative against online hate speech but called for a joint European effort.

“Only a uniform European regulation can become a successful standard and assert itself worldwide,” ISPA said in a statement. “Uncoordinated individual courses don’t get us any further here.”

There has been, however, significant pushback against government censorship: In France, the Constitutional Council, a French court that examines legislation’s compatibility with the constitution, struck down multiple provisions of the “Avia law” in June because it infringed on freedom of expression. The Constitutional Council noted in its press release:

“[According] to Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789: ‘The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious human rights: any citizen can therefore speak, write, print freely, except to answer for the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by the law’. It is inferred from these provisions that with the present state of the means of communication and in view of the generalized development of online communication services to the public, as well as the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right implies the freedom to access and express yourself in these services…”

“Freedom of expression and communication is all the more precious since its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. It follows that the interference with the exercise of that freedom must be necessary… and proportionate to the objective pursued”.

The court found that multiple provisions of the “Avia law” infringed on freedom of expression because they were not “necessary or proportionate”.

“We too often make bad laws with good intentions. Online platforms should not censor the freedom of expression,” said Chairman of the Senate Law Commission Philippe Bas after the Constitutional Council’s decision.

It can only be hoped that European lawmakers eager to censor free speech online will heed the ruling of the French constitutional court.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16739/austria-hate-speech-law