Bevis på valfusk i USA
Valfuskdatorn avslöjad Flera miljoner av de 20 miljonerna "extra" röster i höstens presidentval kan komma att visa sig vara förfalskade av vänstern.
Igår började bevisen på valfusk att lämnas in till de lokala domstolarna i USA. Valfusket är omfattande och inbegriper tiotusentals personer som förfalskat hundratusentals eller kanske miljoner valsedlar.
För att få en känsla för omfattningen av valfusket bör man veta att när Obama vann över Romney 2012 fick han 65 miljoner röster mot Romneys 60 miljoner röster (totalt 125 miljoner röster). Och När Trump vann över Hillary fick han 62 miljoner röster och hon fick 65 miljoner röster (totalt 127 miljoner röster).
I år slog Trump USA-rekord med hela 71 miljoner röster, men istället för omkring 55 miljoner röster ska de två djupt impopulära "demokratiska" pro-kinesiska kandidaterna ha fått 20 miljoner röster "extra" jämfört med tidigare valdeltagande.
Det är känt att valfusket har skett på ett tiotal olika vis, bland annat genom den ökända Clinton och Soros-kopplade rösträkningsdatorn Dominion.
Men det mest omfattande valfusket har antagligen gått till så att efter att alla röster räknats, både lagliga och olagliga, har "demokraterna" skickat in busslaster med falska poströster till dess att valresultatet ser ut att ha gått deras väg.
Nedan följer ett exempel av tusentals vittnesmål om organiserat valfusk. I detta fall pekas cheferna på vallokalen ut som de ansvariga:
Forging Ballots on the Qualified Voter List
14. An attorney and former Michigan Assistant Attorney General was a certified poll
challenger at the TCF Center (Exhibit A – Affidavit of Zachary Larsen).
15. As Mr. Larsen watched the process, he was concerned that ballots were being
processed without confirmation that the voter was an eligible voter in the poll book because of
information he had received from other poll challengers (Exhibit A).
16. Mr. Larsen reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system,
where it appeared that the voter had already been counted as having voted. An official operating
the computer then appeared to assign this ballot to a different voter as he observed a completely
different name that was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed
ballots on the right side of the screen (Exhibit A).
17. Mr. Larsen was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers
indicated that a ballot was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll
book or the supplemental poll book. From his observation of the computer screen, the voters were
not in the official poll book. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters
whose ballots he personally observed being scanned (Exhibit A).
18. Because of Mr. Larsen’s concern, he stepped behind the table and walked over to a
spot behind where the first official was conducting her work. Understanding health concerns due
to COVID-19, he attempted to stand as far away from this official as he reasonably could while
also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes
19. As soon as Mr. Larsen moved to a location where he could observe the process by
which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first
official immediately stopped working and glared at him. He stood still until she began to loudly
and aggressively tell him that he could not stand where he was standing. She indicated that he
needed to remain in front of the computer screen where he could not see what the worker was
doing (Exhibit A).
20. Both officials then began to tell Mr. Larsen that because of COVID, he needed to
be six feet away from the table. He responded that he could not see and read the supplemental poll
book from six feet away, and that he was attempting to keep his distance to the extent possible
21. Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor had explained that the rules
allowed Mr. Larsen to visually observe what he needed to see and then step back away. Likewise,
on Election Day, he had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing
and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, he remained in a
position to observe the supplemental poll book (Exhibit A).
22. Both officials indicated that Mr. Larsen could not remain in a position that would
allow him to observe their activities; the officials indicated they were going to get their supervisor
23. When the supervisor arrived, she reiterated that Mr. Larsen was not allowed to stand
behind the official with the supplemental poll book, and he needed to stand in front of the computer
screen. Mr. Larsen told her that was not true, and that he was statutorily allowed to observe the
process, including the poll book (Exhibit A).
24. The supervisor then pivoted to arguing that Mr. Larsen was not six feet away from
the first official. Mr. Larsen told her that he was attempting to remain as far away as he could while
still being able to read the names on the poll book (Exhibit A).
25. The supervisor then stood next to the chair immediately to the left of the first
official and indicated that Mr. Larsen was “not six feet away from” the supervisor and that she
intended to sit in the chair next to the official with the poll book, so he would need to leave (Exhibit
26. This supervisor had not been at the table at any time during the process, and she
had responsibility for numerous ACVBs. Further, the supervisor’s choice of chairs was
approximately three feet to the left of the first official and therefore in violation of the six-foot
distance rule (Exhibit A).
27. Accordingly, Mr. Larsen understood that this was a ruse to keep him away from a
place where he could observe the confirmation of names in the supplemental poll book. The
supervisor began to repeatedly tell him that he “needed to leave” so he responded that he would
go speak with someone else and fill out a challenge form (Exhibit A).
28. After Mr. Larsen observed and uncovered the fraud that was taking place and had
the confrontation with the supervisor, he left the counting room to consult with another attorney
about the matter around 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Exhibit A).
29. It was at this point that election officials stopped permitting any further poll
challengers to enter the counting room, including Mr. Larsen (Exhibit A).
30. Election officials never allowed Mr. Larsen to re-enter the counting room to fulfill
his duties as a poll challenger after he had discovered the fraud which was taking place.
Utan aktiv hjälp från landets vänsteraktivistiska "journalister" hade valfusket aldrig haft en chans att lyckas: