Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won In 2020

[King Wenceslas]

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/mail-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-2020

Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won In 2020

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study examining the likely impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots had in the 2020 election concludes that the outcome would "almost certainly" have been different without the massive expansion of voting by mail.

The Heartland Institute study tried to gauge the probable impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots cast for both then-candidate Joe Biden and his opponent, President Donald Trump, would have had on the overall 2020 election results.

The study was based on data obtained from a Heartland/Rasmussen survey in December that revealed that roughly one in five mail-in voters admitted to potentially fraudulent actions in the presidential election.

After the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, they concluded that mail-in ballot fraud "significantly" impacted the 2020 presidential election.

They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail-in ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won.

"Had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected," the report's authors wrote.

Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history.

'Biggest Story of the Year'

The new study examined raw data from the December survey carried out jointly between Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, which tried to assess the level of fraudulent voting that took place in 2020.

The December survey, which President Trump called "the biggest story of the year," suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they're no longer permanent residents.

In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is "under most circumstances, illegal" and so potentially amounts to voter fraud.

"This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted," the researchers wrote.

A Heartland Institute research editor and research fellow who was involved in the study explained to The Epoch Times in a telephone interview that there are narrow exceptions where a surveyed behavior may be legal, like filling out a mail-in ballot on behalf of another voter if that person is blind, illiterate, or disabled, and requests assistance.

However, the research fellow, Jack McPherrin, said such cases were within the margin of error and not statistically significant.

What Are the Implications?

In addition to reassessing the likely overall degree of fraudulent mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, Heartland analysts calculated the potential impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots might have produced in the six key swing states that President Trump officially lost.

This, then, was used to determine the impact of potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots on the overall 2020 election result.

First, the researchers analyzed the electoral results for the six swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—under the 28.2 percent fraudulent mail-in ballot scenario that they estimated based on the raw survey data.

Then they calculated the electoral results in the six states under the different scenarios, each with a lower assumed percentage of fraudulent ballots, ranging from 28.2 percent all the way down to 1 percent.

For each of the 29 scenarios that they assesses, the researchers calculated the estimated number of fraudulent ballots, which were then subtracted from overall 2020 vote totals to generate a new estimate for vote totals.

Overall, of the 29 different scenarios presented in the study, the researchers concluded that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three.

Specifically, they calculated that the only scenarios that would affirm the official 2020 election result, namely that candidate Biden won, were mail-in ballot fraud levels between 1 and 3 percent of ballots cast.

Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead.

For example, the adjustment to the vote tallies under fraud percentage rates between 13 and 6 percent would mean President Trump would have won Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, though he would have still lost in Michigan and Nevada.

Under such a scenario, President Trump would have won 289 Electoral College votes compared to candidate Biden's 249.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln

[Michael Wilson]

How about the "Non-mailed in" ballots that the Democratic machine pulled out of the closet in Georgia and PA after the polls were closed? Those are much easier to customize to fit the needs of any "voter-deficit".

[james03]

Yep.  Or the ONLY official audit done on the 2020 election, which uncovered 200,000 illegal ballots in Arizona.

[Michael Wilson]

Yep.  Or the ONLY official audit done on the 2020 election, which uncovered 200,000 illegal ballots in Arizona.

Let me take a wild guess as to which candidate they were in favor of.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Yep.  Or the ONLY official audit done on the 2020 election, which uncovered 200,000 illegal ballots in Arizona.

Let me take a wild guess as to which candidate they were in favor of.

Nader

[LausTibiChriste]

If the election actually was stolen then he is an incompetent fool, played by people y'all think are idiots and to say nothing of the fact that he made no serious attempt to get it back.

And if you think an incompetent fool is going to "drain the swamp" (no this time for real, last time was different) then you are more than an incompetent fool, you are a retard.

And he's going to do all this while being pro-LGBT and giving Planned Parenthood more federal funding than they've ever received under any other President (including Obama), to say nothing of being the Father of the Vaccine (his words, not mine) - this is your saviour?

You guys are idiots.

And if one person walks in here and says the alternative is worse (looking at you Josh), then you better go read your Catechisms because that AIN'T Catholic.







Of course we're on a board where most everyone was flaunting the below Jew as a "Catholic President"

[james03]

And if you think an incompetent fool is going to "drain the swamp" (no this time for real, last time was different) then you are more than an incompetent fool, you are a retard.

He's not going to drain the swamp.  He'll buy us 4 years, assuming he wins.

He will pull troops out of Syria, and he'll not start any more wars during his 4 years (though he's not getting 4 years, they'll steal it).   And he'll stop the invasion.

As far as Catholics, in America there is only one body in the government that sets policy that falls under what we term "The Social Reign of Christ the King", and that is the Supreme Court.  Since you are a foreigner, I don't expect you to know this, anymore than I know what a "riding" is.  The Executive and the Legislature can delay things and do temporary things, however once the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it's over.

And if Trump were to win (and pigs fly), Alito and Thomas can retire.  They are very old Trad Catholics that sit on SCOTUS.  And they'll be replaced by young justices selected by the Federalist Society, which is run by a conservative Catholic.  Which means the Right will own SCOTUS for about 30 years.

And if Biden/Kamala are reelected, chances are that Alito or Thomas, or both will die and be replaced by hard  left jewish bolsheviks. Which means we'll get hate speech laws, the implementation of the jewish terror State, the reintroduction of abortion, forced on the conservative States, and the abolition of the Second Amendment.  So any Catholic with an IQ above 80 knows that a Trump win over the leftist candidate is absolutely critical.

And even if Alito and Thomas cling on to life for the next 5 years, during the second presidency of Biden/Harris, they'll import another 10 MM primitive savages, so the marxists will own the Presidency forever, and eventually get SCOTUS.

[james03]

And to stress the point, Trump ain't winning.  The Dems have control over Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  They count the ballots.

And even if there is some sort of miracle and Trump wins, there's no escaping the default of the government before 2030.

A Trump win would mean a pause in the foreign invasion, better foreign policy, and a delay in the implementation of the jewish terror State.  It buys us time, and MAYBE we can get some Red States to secede.

[LausTibiChriste]

A Trump win would mean a pause in the foreign invasion, better foreign policy, and a delay in the implementation of the jewish terror State.  It buys us time, and MAYBE we can get some Red States to secede.

That is not a Catholic outlook considering the guy is pro-abortion (at the very least in the classic 'exemptions') and is the most pro-LGBT President you've ever had. Moral issues trump (no pun intended) societal or economic issues ALWAYS. De facto.

From the SSPX: Catholic Principles for Voting





This is NOT Pro-Life (and if you give me a "it's a step in the right direction" argument you are de-facto a modernist and belong in a Novus Ordo)


Gayest President in history



Make no mistake about it:
Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is evil.

Voting for a pro-sodomy candidate is evil.


American Catholics who vote for Trump are pinching their incense for the Emperor and committing an incredible evil by doing so.

[Severinus]

Foreign policy, border security, immigration and economics are moral issues. Voting single issue on ending all abortion is a ridiculous proposition. Anyone who campaigns on culture war as their central platform won't be elected, and knows it, and is just trying to scam little old ladies (and the men who are their equivalent) for donations.

[Kaesekopf]

I've been hearing about voter fraud for literally the last 24 years of political activity.

I am stunned that the GOP has been unable to either 1) mask it to win themselves or 2) uncover it to win and jail the election fixers.

It is laughable.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I've been hearing about voter fraud for literally the last 24 years of political activity.

I am stunned that the GOP has been unable to either 1) mask it to win themselves or 2) uncover it to win and jail the election fixers.

It is laughable.

Be stunned no more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

It's not (R) vs. (D) but rather Uniparty vs. The People.

There are some people with the (R) label who are not Uniparty, but there are zero people with the (D) label who are not Uniparty, so I can appreciate the confusion.

[Kaesekopf]

Be stunned no more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

It's not (R) vs. (D) but rather Uniparty vs. The People.

There are some people with the (R) label who are not Uniparty, but there are zero people with the (D) label who are not Uniparty, so I can appreciate the confusion.

Oh, I guess I'm less stunned at the rhetoric and more that people buy into it or care about it.  The Uniparty is pretty terrible though.

[Severinus]

Be stunned no more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

It's not (R) vs. (D) but rather Uniparty vs. The People.

There are some people with the (R) label who are not Uniparty, but there are zero people with the (D) label who are not Uniparty, so I can appreciate the confusion.

Oh, I guess I'm less stunned at the rhetoric and more that people buy into it or care about it.  The Uniparty is pretty terrible though.

Okay but let's be clear, "I've heard claims like this before, I didn't care about those and I don't care about this" isn't an argument, it's just a profession of personal apathy.

[Kaesekopf]

Okay but let's be clear, "I've heard claims like this before, I didn't care about those and I don't care about this" isn't an argument, it's just a profession of personal apathy.

When you hear the same claim for 20+ years and NOTHING gets done about it, yeah, hard to care about the claim. 

Do something about it, maybe?