#RESIST – The Evidence of Fraud Is Real

#RESIST – The Evidence of Fraud Is Real

The City of Brotherly Love has a long history of election fraud and richly deserves its reputation as one of the most corrupt cities in America.

The corruption among city officials is so entrenched, it’s become part of their culture. Ronald Reagan’s well known warning that we should “Trust but verify” no longer applies.

This is why when we hear about high voter turnout rates in some parts of Philadelphia, and other equally stunning anomalies, our ears perk up. And we are not wrong to pay attention. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

In Monday’s episode of Dan Bongino’s podcast (#1388, below), he covered some of the “irregularities” observed in Philadelphia and elsewhere during and after the election. As Dan puts it. “There is evidence [of wrongdoing]. Liberals just don’t like the evidence.”

Attorney Sidney Powell alleges that a high number of those 98,000 single vote ballots which had been cast in Pennsylvania for Biden, may be fraudulent. According to Powell, more than 450,000 single vote ballots for Joe Biden were cast in the swing states on Election Day.

Dan discussed the high number of dead people who “cast ballots” as well. It will take time for investigators to go through states’ voter rolls, but I assure you, they will. In fact, earlier this year, Judicial Watch’ founder Tom Fitton threatened lawsuits over states who refused to purge their voter rolls of those who have moved out of the state or died. I would guess that few, if any, states complied. But I have a feeling that, given this election, Fitton is “on it.”

Attorney Ken Starr addressed this issue in an interview on Sunday night with conservative commentator Mark Levin. He recounted the story of a widow who cast a vote for her deceased husband because she “knew” how he would have voted. That doesn’t justify an illegal vote. Sorry.

Next, Dan looked at the high number of whistleblowers willing to actually go on the record. They have provided sworn affidavits in which they outline real evidence of fraud. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that they’ve now collected at least 60 sworn statements.

The same party that deified the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry is now refusing to acknowledge the numerous people who have come forward since the election.

Do you remember that Democrats insisted he remain anonymous? When conservative commentator Mollie Hemingway uttered his name during a November 2019 panel discussion on Fox, everything stopped. Panel moderator Howie Kurtz and Hillary Clinton sycophant Philip Reines, a panelist, were temporarily rendered speechless. A headline from RedState about this moment read, “Mollie Hemingway Turns Fox Studio Into HAZMAT Area as She Names the Whistleblower.”

Dan featured an article by the Washington Examiner’s Kerry Picket which discussed an affidavit from Richard Hopkins, an Erie, Pennsylvania postal worker.

Hopkins said:

I heard Weisenbach tell a supervisor at my office that Weisenbach was back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later.

From a second conversation he overheard:

Weisenbach and Locke discussed how on November 4, 2020, they had back-dated the postmark on all but one of the ballots collected on November 4, 2020 to make it appear as though the ballots had instead been collected on November 3, 2020. I overheard Weisenbach tell Locke that they ‘messed up yesterday’ — November 4, 2020 — by accidentally postmarking one ballot as having been collected November 4, 2020 (when it had actually been collected).

Richard Hopkins and many other whistleblowers have provided investigators with solid evidence of fraud. It happened.

Next, Dan calls attention to a “very strange pattern of voting in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin.”

For example, in Milwaukee, “this bumbling idiot” Joe Biden, a historically unpopular candidate, received 100,000 more votes than Barack Obama did.

Statisticians use a fraud detection method known as Benford’s Law to search for anomalies or “red flags” in data sets. Dan explains that Benford looked through data sets and made certain observations. He noticed that “the presence of certain numbers will appear in a pretty standard distribution…The chances of a “1” being the first digit in a data set is a whole lot higher than any other digit…”

If for example, you don’t see a prevalence of 0s or 1s in a random data set, it stands out. He continued: “What if I told you if you look at some of the voter data in Wisconsin that Benford’s law is saying…it’s not possible.”

He says that accounting firms actually use Benford’s law to look for fraud. “Although it doesn’t prove fraud, it indicates that something weird is going on with the digits and the numbers.” It points out the areas which require further scrutiny.

Dan features an article in The National Pulse written by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters. They write:

Analysis of votes cast for Joe Biden and turnout itself in Pennsylvania reveal a host of statistical and historical anomalies that favor the Democratic candidate’s chances of winning the presidency.

Two reports, providing over 10 pages of statistical analysis of raw Pennsylvania voter data, appear to signal election irregularities – virtually all boosting Biden’s vote count in the critical state.

Kassam and Winters look at those single vote ballots for Biden and the results are fascinating. Read the whole article.

Episode #1388 was an especially illuminating one. If you missed it, I highly recommend you take a look.

 

Previous
Ep. 1389 Still Resisting
Next
Joe Biden Already Violating the Logan Act