Retired senior DoD analyst Ray Blehar has examined an underreported election story pertaining to write-in and minor party ballots/votes. His investigation has resulted in some startling conclusions and a working theory: that Biden’s margin of victory in several key states could have been provided by shifting write-in and minor party ballots through ballot adjudication.

Let us examine his statistical analysis and conclusions in more detail. First, a definition of terms:

Write-in ballots. These are ballots marked by voters who choose to vote for a candidate other than those listed on the printed ballots.

Minor party ballots. These are ballots marked for candidates of minor parties who were qualified to be on the election slate, such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. Approved minor party candidates will vary by state, depending on qualification requirements.

WIMP. This is an acronym that stands for the sum of write-in and minor party ballots in a given state.

Adjudication. This is a manual process by which the “intent of the individual voter” is determined when a given ballot cannot be determined by automated tabulation devices. Adjudicated ballots are typically write-in ballots, mismarked ballots (double votes), misaligned ballots, and other categories. Note: it is also possible to program voting machines in order to recognize a “straight party” ballot as misaligned and automatically sending it to the manual adjudication process. Adjudication is really where the vote shifting happens, particularly if the election officials in a given precinct are all from one political party and/or vote shifting malware has “infected” tabulation devices. //

Blehar believes the following happened:

Conclusion #1: The total adjudication manipulation resulted in Biden winning the state by ~80,500 votes, but in reality, President Trump actually won Pennsylvania by over 186,000 votes.
Conclusion #2: Biden’s margin of victory could have only been obtained through adjudication manipulation.

Yesterday, the worst miss in job’s report history made its debut. Only 266,000 out of over one million projected jobs were added to the economy, and it wasn’t just the economists who were surprised. //

It was a watershed moment in the new administration that showed that policy actually matters, and obsessions over decorum seem rather shallow when the bullets really start to fly.

Naturally, given the seriousness of what we witnessed, that meant resident Never Trumpers were talking about Donald Trump yesterday — instead of the failures of Joe Biden and how inflation is threatening to crush the middle class. //

Stephen Hayes
@stephenfhayes
For 6 years, elected GOPers have rationalized their Trump support saying to themselves "if I just compromise my values this one time" the worst will be behind me. They've been wrong every time.

Trump's not going away. This isn't going to get easier. Trump won't bring GOP unity //

Mollie
@MZHemingway
Replying to @MZHemingway
What's more far and away the largest source of division in the party has not been Trump but the NeverTrumpers who refused to accept the legitimacy and significance of his election, spending five years trying to throw him out of office and undermine his electorally winning agenda. //

Stephen Hayes
@stephenfhayes
"Electorally winning agenda."

In 2016 and 2020, Trump underperformed Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign at the national level. Romney won a higher share of the total vote in 2012 (47.2%) than Trump did in either 2016 (46.1%) or 2020 (46.9%). Romney was challenging a popular incumbent //

This is the delusion of Never Trump, in as stark of terms as I’ve ever witnessed.

Note the appeal to participation trophies instead of actually, you know, winning elections. Mollie Hemingway is obviously correct because Trump did actually win, and her qualifier of “electorally winning” is important. //

It is an exercise in beating one’s head against a brick wall to continue to sugar-coat Mitt Romney as the true representation of a winning coalition. He simply wasn’t, as evidenced by the fact that he did not win. Hayes can cherry-pick whatever results he wants, but in the end, the GOP has moved past Romney’s vision of the Republican party. No amount of fluffing The 2012 loss and obsessing over Donald Trump is going to change that. That doesn’t mean you have to support Trump himself as the 2024 nominee, but it does mean you have to accept the reality of how the party has changed in regards to policy and posture.

The current dynamic is simple. Republican voters prefer a far more restrained foreign policy; they see China as a threat to be combated; they oppose big tech monopolizing the means of information distribution; they want immigration laws followed; and they give no quarter to big corporations that turn around and spit in their faces with woke ideology. It’s not 2005 anymore. Mitt Romney and those like him are never going to represent the GOP at a high level again. Liz Cheney is not the future of the party.

These are facts that can be accepted and worked with, or one can continue to yell at the clouds as they pass. Hayes and his cohorts have chosen the latter path. We’ll see how that works out for them.

Historical parallels are always there for the thoughtful. Consider a key turning point for each of two former US presidents.

Union General Ulysses S. Grant crossed the Rapidan River in Virginia on 4 May 1864 – 157 years ago this very week – to commence the Overland Campaign in order to engage and destroy Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in a series of bloody battles that ended on 12 June when the siege of Petersburg began.

With the stakes equally high for the country, Donald Trump crossed his own Rapidan to commence his version of the Overland Campaign when he started down that escalator on 15 June 2015 and declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. This past Monday, that campaign continued with the latest battle as he labeled the 2020 election “The Big Lie.”

Some would say this is over-the-top hyperbole. I think not. Let us examine the parallels.

Grant developed a reputation for dogged determination and tenacity – honed in capturing heavily fortified Vicksburg, MS, in July 1863 and later at Missionary Ridge in Tennessee in November 1863 – but also for ingenuity in the use of maneuver warfare and op tempo, the delegation of authority to subordinates, battlefield improvisation, and a genius-level understanding of the strategic and operational levels of 19th-century warfare.

The Overland Campaign was his first major operation after having been appointed commander of all Union armies by President Lincoln in March 1964. The strategy he developed involved continually holding and engaging Lee’s sizeable but inferior army while Gen. William T. Sherman cut through Georgia (which eventually became the “March to the Sea”), and two other Union generals concentrated on the key Confederate port at Mobile, AL, and major railway supply lines in West Virginian. The strategic objective was to attrite Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia while destroying the Confederate army’s logistics resupply capability and ability to wage war.

“From The Desk Of Donald J. Trump” is a new webpage on www.DonaldJTrump.com, the website of the former President.

As noted in this Fox News story, the Facebook “Oversight Board” is supposed to rule as early as tomorrow on whether Pres. Trump will be allowed to return to using Facebook and Instagram. His accounts were suspended based on his social media and other commentaries on January 6 (allegedly). //

It may, in fact, turn out to be the case that the social media bans imposed on Pres. Trump end up being a boon both economically and influence-wise. Trump had millions of followers on social media and received more than 75 million votes in the November election; I suspect it won’t take too much time at all for him to reach a number of followers in the tens of millions for any new venture once it is built out.

Had Facebook and Twitter allowed him to remain on their platforms, they could have manipulated their technology to limit his reach by creating bottlenecks for his information and messaging.

By kicking him off their sites, they incentivized him to work with others to seek to build a new platform beyond their control.

Joe Biden got his vaccine under the Trump Administration. https://t.co/1FHhZdhnEY

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 3, 2021

Tucked away in the USA Today story, they note there was a requirement in the bill Trump signed that called for a letter to go out notifying people of the payment. So that if there were any questions/concerns/mistakes, Americans would have that letter as a record to reference. So it wasn’t just an idle letter to promote Trump. There’s the same requirement in latest Act with which the Biden team has to comply, as CNN notes. But Biden’s letter wouldn’t get the same criticism. There was no criticism of Biden in the CNN story yesterday, reporting about the checks, indeed there was only criticism of Trump.

Now, first thing I’d say about the letter, I get that it’s an IRS payment, but seriously, IRS letters give people heart attacks, with people’s first thought that they’re in trouble.

But do you notice something else in there?

Here’s what Biden claims in his letter:

“A key part of the American Rescue Plan is direct payments of $1400 per person for most American households. With the Direct Payment from December, this brings the total relief payment up to $2000. This fulfills a promise I made to you, and will help get millions of Americans through this crisis.”

Oh, no, he just didn’t! He just took credit for money that passed under Trump.

Also prior to the election House Speaker Nancy Pelosi balked at the passage of a smaller bill that Republicans would have agreed to. She was then was cool with it after the election. Why? She admitted “that’s OK now because we have a new president.” So it takes some chutzpah to take credit for something that should have been passed before, under Trump.

Nielsen now reports that an estimated 26.9 million people tuned in to watch President Biden’s inaugural address to a Joint Session of Congress. //

By comparison, Trump’s first address to Congress brought in 47.7 million viewers. Even his final State of the Union hit 37 million viewers. Biden trailed those totals greatly, bringing in a heavily partisan audience to boot (MSNBC was the top cable news network for ratings). //

laraffinee
2 hours ago
Yes, the reality is laughable. Just like the so called "80 million" that "voted" for him. Pathetic sock puppet. //

tomferal
2 hours ago edited
Biden has an IQ (est. 72) half of Trump's (est. 144), so if he got half the audience Trump did, that seems pretty copacetic to me. The Ying and the Yang of the Universe remain in balance.

Roughly half of viewers, 51%, fell in the “very positive” reaction category. A chart showed that is a lower figure than was recorded for former Presidents Donald Trump in 2017, Barack Obama in 2009, and George W. Bush in 2001, whose “very positive” scores in the same poll were 57%, 68%, and 66%, respectively.

That was even with the watchers who “overall leaned Democratic,” CNN’s Manu Raju admitted. Yikes.

Tom Elliott
@tomselliott
Psaki: “I can assure you” the Biden DoJ raiding Giuliani occurred “in an independent manner” //

There are many reasons to brush this claim of independence off as gaslighting, not the least of which is that Psaki is a known liar.

Past that, ask yourself why the FBI only seems to want to push the enforcement of FARA laws when it comes to Trump associates? We’ve got John Kerry literally tipping off the Iranians about Israeli military operations, but he’s not being investigated as a foreign agent. Hunter Biden was paid to testify for a foreign actor before Congress and never even registered as a lobbyist. Yet, Giuliani pokes around in Ukraine to try to expose corruption by Americans like the aforementioned Hunter Biden and that makes him an emissary of the Ukrainians? This is going to strike a lot of people as selective justice, and that’s assuming Giuliani even did anything wrong, of which no evidence of that exists publicly yet. //

Heck, you don’t even have to look past this story for proof of that. Why was this raid immediately leaked to The New York Times so it could be reported through a left-wing, anti-Trump prism? Of course, the investigation into Hunter Biden is locked down like Fort Knox, though. Amazing how the leaks stop the moment a Democrat is the target, right? Tell me again how the DOJ isn’t politicized.

The Washington Post positively gushed over Trump’s pick for the official portrait.

His portrait of Trump has both artistic and historic merit, Ureña said. “I like the composition of the photograph,” she said of Dukovic’s image. “It is an angle we don’t often see. You get a little bit of the other side and what’s behind the desk.”

The photograph’s historical details include flags along the wall representing the five branches of the armed forces, a portrait of Andrew Jackson and one of Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Duplessis that the museum loaned to the White House. These reflect Trump’s interests and influences, Ureña said. The photograph was taken the day before Trump officially announced he would seek reelection, adding to its historical value, Ureña said.

“We want to not only depict the individual,” she said, “but also bring as much history as much context as possible.”

Someone should check on the staff writers to see if they’re okay and not under duress of any kind. We are just not used to this.

Restoring genuine beauty in our cities goes hand in hand with any attempt to revive a spiritual nature amongst a people. //

There is no greater public expression of ideology, culture, or society than the architecture that we live with and see daily. President Trump acknowledged this with his executive order to “Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.” Britain also notes its importance with the inception of the “Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.”

Surprisingly, such attempts to restore and revive classical architecture have spawned a culture war in the field of architecture. Within 100 days of taking office, Joe Biden has already rescinded President Trump’s executive order, striking a victory for modernist and brutalist architectural designs.

This battle, in which classicists argue for more Western-classical buildings instead of contemporary styles, is unique amongst other cultural struggles. Why? Because, at least in this case, “conservatives” are on the offensive.

In the field of architecture, traditionalists are the revolutionaries fighting against the entrenched beliefs and notions of modern architecture. Yet the classical traditionalists also, according to recent polls, can boast vast popular support.

Despite these advantages, however, those who argue for a return to classical buildings face legitimate questions and problems. Primarily, what does a practical program look like, and what benefits does it bring? I discovered such a program when I arrived in Budapest to work at the Committee of National Remembrance, an independent research institution established by the Hungarian Parliament in 2013 that researches Hungary’s communist period.

The oligarchy that sucks its money, power, and prestige from America will never forgive the America First president for exposing its corruption. And since they are outnumbered and unloved, the US-based elite comprising big tech, corporate media, the intelligence bureaucracy, and senior Democratic Party officials must stay on offense as long as possible—which is why they continue to hunt Donald Trump and his allies.

On Friday, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported that former Trump administration official Kash Patel is “facing Justice Department investigation for possible improper disclosure of classified information.” The 40-year-old lawyer from Queens, New York served in several senior posts under Trump, including National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism, senior advisor to the Director of National Intelligence, and Pentagon chief of staff.

Patel was first forced into the spotlight in 2017 after he joined Congressman Devin Nunes’ investigation of crimes and abuses committed during the FBI’s operation targeting the Trump campaign. An aggressive former federal prosecutor, Patel knew where to look for evidence of FBI and Department of Justice wrongdoing at the top levels. As he began to document their illegal activities, Democratic Party operatives leaked his name to the press in an effort to intimidate him. Friday’s story is a continuation of a four-year offensive against a patriot who helped uncover the scandal underlying Russiagate, the Third-World-style combined media and intelligence operation smearing Trump and his aides as Russian agents in order to spy on them. //

U.S. officials are zeroing in on Patel because he exposed their rot. Now they’re employing the same tactics with which they prosecuted the Crossfire Hurricane operation—leak to the press to kick off a politicized investigation during which they will manufacture evidence to vilify, or even prosecute, an adversary. And so American intelligence and federal law enforcement continue their tragic spiral downwards, through corruption and toward irrelevance.

Glenn Kessler
@GlennKesslerWP
The trial memo of the Trump impeachment managers has a sentence that did not age well.

“The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

Glenn Kessler
@GlennKesslerWP
Replying to @GlennKesslerWP
That sentence was sourced to a Jan. 8 NYT report with the headline, "Capitol Police Officer Dies From Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage." But the story was updated after information emerged that cast doubt on that narrative. //

President Donald Trump was impeached in the House on Jan. 13 and the trial was between Feb. 9-13. So they had every reason to know prior to the trial, even from the CNN report on Feb. 2, that this claim of death from being struck with a fire extinguisher by insurrectionists was false. Indeed they should have known since the ABC report and my report on Jan. 10, that there wasn’t any evidence for the fire extinguisher story; they should not have claimed that without evidence. But they made the claim anyway. Indeed by Feb. 2, it was clear even to CNN that Sicknick had no blunt trauma injuries indicating he was ever physically hit by anything.

Had the medical examiner’s report come in before the impeachment trial, saying that Sicknick died due to two strokes, that probably would have heavily impacted what they were trying to sell to people at the impeachment trial between February 9-13. The medical examiner’s report just came out today, April 19, after waiting since January 7. The length of time it took to get the report is troubling, to say the least.

This per the Washington Examiner.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death was initially believed to be caused by rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, succumbed to natural causes stemming from a stroke the day after the violence, according to the top medical examiner in the nation’s capital.

Francisco J. Diaz, the chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C., told the Washington Post that Sicknick died on Jan. 7 after suffering two strokes and he did not suffer an allergic reaction to any chemical irritants.

Americans should be outraged their government participates in the wide-scale human trafficking operation that created a market for harvesting the organs of murdered infants. //

Last week, legal accountability group Judicial Watch dropped a bombshell: a nearly 600-page report proving the U.S. government has been buying and trafficking “fresh” aborted baby body parts. These body parts, purchased by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “humanize” mice and test biologic drugs in scientific experiments, came from babies up to 24-weeks-old gestation, just weeks from being born. //

Recent emails uncovered by Judicial Watch between FDA employees and the California-based Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) prove the agency spent tens of thousands of dollars buying aborted babies for unethical scientific experiments between 2012 and 2018. In 2018, the Trump administration terminated the contract, halting government fetal tissue research due to concerns the contracts were unlawful. Judicial Watch’s new FOIA Request adds 575 pages of records to its existing 2019 lawsuit against the agency. //

When an ABR employee reassured the FDA they were working with doctors who performed late-term abortions, he admitted some tissue was unusable from a procedure that injects a poison called digoxin into the baby, destroying its cells and tissues. Once the chemical has done its work, an intact, dead baby is delivered. This method makes fetal tissue specimens unusable in experiments; with digoxin off the table, the likelihood partial-birth abortions were used is sickeningly high.

These conversations should shock even those who are pro-abortion, most of whom believe in significant term restrictions. Babies at this level of development possess all characteristics necessary for surviving life outside the womb and premature children born as young as 21 weeks go on to lead healthy, thriving lives.
An Atrocity Against Human Dignity

These gruesome excerpts are just a sample of records substantiating the 2019 lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against HHS, which houses the FDA. In March this year, a federal court ordered the agency to release records it withheld about purchasing organs of aborted babies, saying it found “reason to question” the transactions violated federal law.

The court’s decision found that the U.S. government bought second-trimester livers, thymuses, brains, eyes, and lungs for hundreds of dollars apiece from ABR, stating ABR could collect “over $2,000 on a single fetus it purchased … for $60” and “the federal government participated in this potentially illicit trade for years.”

Americans should be outraged their government participates in the wide-scale human trafficking operation that created a market for harvesting the organs of murdered infants. In no humane society could such a violation of the human body and dignity occur, in which babies’ eyes are “harvested immediately upon death,” organs marketed based on sex, and personhood attributed to mice but not children.

Remember that Russian bounties story with which the media absolutely flayed President Donald Trump?

The fake story claimed that, per U.S. intelligence agencies, supposedly, Russia had offered bounties for killing American forces in Afghanistan. Democrats went crazy, using the story to suggest that somehow Trump, who they painted as a Putin puppet, was not doing anything about this and endangering American troops.

Now that just got officially walked back by U.S. intel.

But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.

The New York Times
@nytimes
Mike Pompeo is emerging as the most outspoken critic of President Biden among former top Trump officials, ignoring, much as he did in office, the custom that current and former secretaries of state avoid the appearance of political partisanship. https://nyti.ms/3ruQB49 //

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
@mrddmia
Dear @nytimes:

Secretary of State @HillaryClinton ran for President after leaving office.

After her stunning defeat to a political novice (Trump), she’s been an outspoken critic for 4 years (and counting).

And former Secretary @JohnKerry hasn’t shut up.

But besides them ... //

Matt Whitlock
@mattdizwhitlock
Replying to @nytimes
What former Secretaries of State have avoided political partisanship?! Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Colin Powell who has endorsed every Dem for 20 years? Albright called Trump a fascist.

Only recent Secretary of State to respect this “custom” is Condi Rice. //

Plus, we should note that six past secretaries of state – Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan – all went on to be elected president and multiple others ran for president. But let’s not tell the “presidential historian” about all that.

But nice try, New York Times. Maybe make the naked partisanship of your own a little less obvious the next time.

Byron York
@ByronYork
Takeaways from this NYT story: 1) Trump's leadership on vaccine was vastly better than anyone in Europe. 2) When it came to a vaccine, Britain was smart to leave the EU. 3) On 1 and 2, elite opinion was dreadfully wrong.

The New York Times
@nytimes
The U.S. and Britain have sped ahead of Europe in terms of vaccinations. What went wrong? https://nyti.ms/3vLz5w4 //

The bloc was comparatively slow to negotiate contracts with drugmakers. Its regulators were cautious and deliberative in approving some vaccines. Europe also bet on vaccines that did not pan out or, significantly, had supply disruptions. And national governments snarled local efforts in red tape. //

The United States basically went into business with the drugmakers, spending much more heavily to accelerate vaccine development, testing and production…“They assumed that simply contracting to acquire doses would be enough,” recalled Dr. Slaoui, whom President Donald J. Trump hired to speed the vaccine development. “In fact what was very important was to be a full, active partner in the development and the manufacturing of the vaccine. And to do so very early.” The result in Europe is a stumbling inoculation effort that has led to political fallout, with leaders pointing fingers over why some of the world’s richest countries, home to factories that churn out vast quantities of vaccine, cannot keep pace with other wealthy nations in injecting its people.

tsar becket adams
@BecketAdams
you all are missing the real story re: WaPo's correction of its Trump/Ga. investigations chief "scoop."

the real scandal is that a bunch of newsrooms claimed at the time they “confirmed” the details of the "scoop" with their own anon sourcing.
Audio shows the media got the Trump-Georgia story all wrong
washingtonexaminer.com //

That’s incredibly significant, and not just from a media malfeasance perspective (but that’s, of course, part of it). Here’s why: it was reported in January that Georgia State officials didn’t think a recording of the call existed, which is presumably why WaPo took bad quotes from a source they wouldn’t name but who was familiar with the conversation. They wanted the story and didn’t have the recording, so they reported what they were told. Not particularly impressive journalism.

That was readily apparent after the Wall Street Journal got their hands on the recording and published it last week, proving that the anonymous source essentially made up quotes and attributed them to the former president. And where was this recording discovered? In the trash folder on a device belonging to the lead investigator in the Secretary of State’s office, the very person Trump called.

The NPR article lists Liz Cheney as an example of the control Trump wishes he could wield. They know that he wants Cheney, as well as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, successfully primaried, and would use funds from his PAC to accomplish that goal. The RNC, NRSC, and NRCC instead have a goal of filling seats with people who attach an R to their name – whether or not they act like a Republican.

And right there you have the most important reason that Trump supporters will donate to Save America PAC over one of the party entitles. They’re sick of watching those entities promote squishy Republicans instead of cultivating a field of people who will stick to conservative principles once elected, and sick of watching those entities not hold Republicans accountable once they’re elected.

It’ll be an interesting meeting at Mar-a-Lago this weekend.