OBJECTIVE. The focus of this article is to reveal the Voter Fraud methods used by the Democrat Party to determine election outcomes in any relatively close election. These methods will be presented using the article published by The Hill written by Ben Komisar and Lisa Hagen who documented the timeline of the events in the final hours before a winner was declared in the March 13, 2018 Special Election involving the newly gerrymandered Pennsylvania District 18.
BACKGROUND. Suspicions of systemic voter suppression led to the formation of a small Ad hoc Citizens Task group to investigate the surprisingly low GOP turnout in the 2012 election of Barack Obama. This group conducted surveys including phone and door-to-door contact with Frequent Voter Republicans who showed to have not voted in the Allegheny County Voter History report. Of 230 respondents, 104 said they had voted including 23 on affidavits. The result of this survey provided further indication of voter suppression directly impacting the final counts during the consolidation phase of results from the Allegheny County Precincts.
SPECIAL ELECTION OF MARCH 13, 2018. When the national Democrats started broadcasting the Special Election for PA 18 as the indicator of their highly publicized Great Blue Wave, it was quickly recognized the election would be a target requiring a mandatory victory. With The Hill providing the timeline of events involving the “counting” of Absentee ballots, it was evident that the management of the Absentee ballots was either lacking or perhaps manipulated. This led to an analysis of the ballots cast by voters versus the Final Certified Count.
To see if every Absentee ballot cast was included in the count, a comparison of the Final Certified Absentee Count by Precinct was made to the ballots cast by individual voters as published in the County Voter History Report. As expected, there was disagreement with the reconciliation revealing that 555 voters by name were shown to have cast an Absentee ballot according to the Voter History Report but their votes were not included in the Final Certified Count.
However, even with recognition of the 555 Absentee ballot vote discrepancy, there was still an additional discrepancy of what appeared to be adjustments at the Precinct level in votes cast at the polls (AP) causing an additional discrepancy of 299 votes. Here is where the most dangerous, yet clever, situation was discovered. The 299 votes consisted of small adjustments by Precinct with 497 votes added spread over 121 Precincts netted against 198 votes deducted from 89 mutually exclusive Precincts. The two adjustments of additions and deductions net to 299 votes and there is now total agreement between the Voter History summation and the adjusted Final Count!! The alleged “clerical errors” of 2012 are gone! (The 39 Military ballots are ignored in this final comparison but, for the record, were not included in the Voter History Report at the time it was distributed to the public.)
The question one might ask is why the 299 consisted of multiple small pluses and small minuses at the Precinct level. Since we don’t know which candidate a voter selects, it would appear that biased adjustments would add “count” to the more desired candidate and subtract “count” from the undesired opponent. Therefore, the 497 added votes plus the 198 reduced votes would generate a potential MARGIN OF VICTORY for the chosen candidate consisting of 695 with 497 added for the chosen and 198 reduced for the opponent.
The near absolutely impossible probability that this number of adjustments could be made with near perfect Total Vote agreement almost assures that an algorithm was introduced at some point in the vote counting process. How novel that you can adjust the votes at the candidate level and mask the fraud at the Total Certified Vote level. (For the record, you can read the small pluses and minuses on the Voter History when sorted by Precinct.)
TIMELINE FROM THE HILL (My Editorial comments in Italics). The early returns indicated a near landslide for Conor Lamb prompting GOP Former Rep Joe Walsh to say the “Republicans need a wake-up call.”
At 9:16 p.m., it was reported “the gap is shrinking between the two candidates”
At 9:40 p.m. the gap was down to 4 points which prompted the comment “…the race looks set to come down to the wire.”
At 10:16 p.m. “Lamb’s early lead has now nearly evaporated with 96 percent of precincts reporting.”
At 10:12 p.m. …just 1,132 votes separate the two candidates.
At this point, there is a lull in the reporting from Allegheny County while it looks like the lead is changing hands which I believe in fact occurred causing great concern in the Democrat ranks!!!!!
At 10:32 Dave Wasserman from Cook Political Report’s commented “Absentee ballots could boost Lamb’s dwindling lead.”
At 10:53 p.m. The Hill reports “The special election will likely come down to the absentee ballots, but two counties won’t count and post those votes until Wednesday morning…”
At 10:55 p.m. “Lamb leads by just 95 votes”
Then, at 11:15 p.m., This is the most critical time period as the lull in reporting is over. Lamb was reported to suddenly be up by 847 votes as Allegheny reported a net of 752 Absentee votes for Lamb. We know now that there were 555 Absentee votes that were never reported in the Official Counts. To say highly suspicious is an understatement.
At 11:25, the Lamb crisis becomes even more severe having used the 555 Absentees and Washington County reporting 1,195 absentee ballots to be counted
At 11:42 p.m. the Associated Press stated “With some absentee ballots still outstanding, the race is too close to call.”
However, almost immediately after the AP statement and exactly 2 minutes later, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declared victory and congratulated Lamb with at statement from Nancy Pelosi lapdog Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (N.M.). Within 71 minutes, Lamb was declaring victory while his lead had again fallen to 579 votes as of 12:10 p.m. and the Republicans were rightfully saying the election was too close to call.
At this point, it is the writer’s opinion that there was panic in Pittsburgh resulting in the use of the algorithm to insure victory as vote counting continued in other counties, and since the national Democrat Party in Washington had declared victory , they had to make it good and, as a result, used their voter fraud nuclear option being the algorithm.
At 12:53 p.m. as Lamb declared victory the ‘media outlets still haven’t called the race and Saccone hasn’t conceded.” This would also be panic time if the algorithm had not yet been used!!! In any event, the use of the algorithm was a must as the national Great Blue Wave was at stake and the pressure was definitely on after the Pelosi directive.
The final margin of victory for Lamb was 755 votes and there can be little doubt this victory was accomplished by multiple applications of Democrat Voter Fraud technique; namely, suppression of Republican ballots and use of an algorithm to distribute illegal votes unsupported by the Voter History Report.
Concerning Allegheny County and the 2020 election, the United States Supreme Court order to separate all ballots received after 8:00 PM on Election Day is critical to provide a means of monitoring the official counts to assure all legal ballots are included in the official counts while assuring all illegal ballots received are not included in the counts. Generating the Voter History Report and providing the analysis described throughout this document in accordance with the United States Supreme Court order will provide considerable assurance of election integrity. In summary, for every legal ballot there must be a count and for every count there must be a ballot and the Allegheny County Voter History is a superb tool to provide this assurance.
Prepared By: William E. Been
Author of Masters of Audacity and Deceit
November 10, 2020