Two Movies You Couldn't Make Again

This is going to be a bit of a movie review, or just commentary. Probably no spoilers. Both are documentaries. Both could probably not be made again.

 

What Is a Woman?

This documentary, by Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire, is worth seeing. He’s dealing with the transgender question by asking the absolutely fundamental question, “What is a woman?” It ought to be simple enough. But in our day, the obviously simple answer is fraught with danger. If you say the basic truth, you’ll be labeled a heinous bigot.

So Matt Walsh covers the country, and the globe, asking this question. He asks it at the annual Woman’s March, wearing a sandwich board sign. He of course gets heckled and ousted, but doesn’t get an answer. He asks it on the streets; I think he’s in Hollywood. People on the street obviously know what a woman is but act like it’s a tough question they can’t answer.

Matt Walsh talking to people on the street in Hollywood
in the film What Is a Woman?

He asks a series of therapists and transgender people (some of the therapists are transgender people as well). They attempt answers, but these are circular. A woman is what a person says it is. But what is it they say they are? A woman. But what is that? It’s whatever they say it means.

You get the picture. Walsh goes through these interviews basically deadpan. He doesn’t indicate an agenda. And this interests me. I wondered how he got these people to talk to him. If they’re going to be angry at him just for asking basic questions, or indicating that he’s trying to get to a truthful definition, why would they submit to his questions?

During some of the interviews and podcasts he’s done since the movie came out last week, he has been giving some behind-the-scenes info. Here’s the thing: they didn’t know who he was.

I’ve been following his blog and podcast for over a decade, since before he was at The Blaze, and long before he joined The Daily Wire crew. He has a sizable following and is fairly well known. To our side. He’s a social conservative opining mainly on social issues. These opinions are essentially unknown to the people he interviewed. They’re aware there’s opposition. But as one therapist (a doctor who performs permanent mutilating surgery on minors) dismisses such opposition as “dinosaurs.” They’re relics of an ancient bone heap of some past generation.

It did not occur to them to look him up. If a person with film crew was coming to ask basic questions—and he submitted the questions to them ahead of time—then it must be an opportunity to declare their message, they seem to assume.

Matt Walsh's bestselling children's book
image found here

Their lack of awareness astounds me. Granted, Matt Walsh had gotten a significant amount of notoriety during the previous year of filming. So most of the interviews were done before he had an infamous encounter asking a trans person to define “what is a woman” on the Dr. Phil show this past February.  And it was before he published a best-selling children’s book, Johnny the Walrus, illustrating the absurdity of letting children decide what they are, with the story of a child who imagines himself to be a walrus. And I guess it is even before he temporarily moved to Loudon County, Virginia, to speak for one minute at a school board meeting. 

Still, like I said, I’ve been following him for over a decade. And his media footprint isn’t invisible for anyone with a search engine.

I think today he could no longer make the movie. He wouldn’t get those people to even respond to his requests, let alone sit in a room with him to answer questions.

A very fun part of the movie was when he goes to Kenya to ask the question of Masai tribesmen, through an interpreter. They thought he was crazy. Everyone knows what a woman is. And if you think you can change from man to woman, they think there’s something wrong with you both for thinking it’s possible and for wanting it to be possible.

Walsh has said in interviews that this part was most painful to his pride. He had to let them think maybe he agreed with these ideas, or at least that he thought they were questions to ask seriously, which meant he left them thinking he was such an idiot—and that people in the US were wacky, and that they’d never want to go there.

I can see he needed to not tell them beforehand, in order to get their honest answers. But I would have thought he’d disabuse them of these misconceptions after the interview. He says he didn’t. To this day they think he’s a crazy American who doesn’t know a man can’t become a woman.

Matt Walsh speaks with Masai tribesmen to ask them,
"What is a woman?" screenshot from here

The point of that adventure was to see if, as is claimed, sex is just a Western social construct. The Masai are about as non-Western as he could find. So, if they know how a man and woman are different, it is not because they have been fed this “social construct” by Western traditions.

The documentary is well done. And Matt Walsh is perhaps the singular person who could ask the question in the way he does.

There’s more to the movie, including the ramifications of society going the way of this war against basic truth. The attempts to hack and prevent this successful film from being seen is evidence the opposition knows the power this movie might have.

You can stream the movie at https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman and probably some other streaming sources.

Here are some of the movie premiere discussions:

·        “Daily Wire Backstage: What is a Woman? PREMIERE” June 1, 2022. 

·        “What surprised Matt Walsh the most when filming 'What is a Woman' | Will Cain Podcast” June 8, 2022. 

·        “Matt Walsh Revisits His What Is A Woman Interview With Dr. Forcier” June 3, 2022. 

·        “Trans YouTuber Responds To What Is A Woman Trailer” Matt Walsh, May 23, 2022. 

 

2000 Mules

I’ve talked about this movie by Dinesh D’Souza a bit already (here and here). One description of the theater experience was, there was a smattering of clapping afterward, but mostly there was stunned silence. People didn’t immediately get up and leave. They were thinking something like, “Wow! It really happened. What do we do now?” That's still an open questions.

There was an interesting interview Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips did with Roman Balmakov on Facts Matter, for EpochTV. Phillips, who does not seem inclined to overstatement, says what they revealed in the movie is just the beginning. There is game changing information coming out soon. In an interview Phillips did with Patriot Patel, he places the release of this information at about six weeks out, or around mid-July.

Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips talk about 2000 Mules
screenshot from here

I’ve been trying to imagine what this bombshell might be. I’m assuming it’s something that can be shown through data analysis, since that’s what he specializes in. He says it isn’t something that can be turned into a movie. It’s something he can clearly explain in a couple of minutes. But there’s six more weeks of getting ready to lay that out? I don’t know what details have to be checked and rechecked. Some of it has to do with getting the information out. He said he’d be bringing news outlets, such as Patriot Patel, together to lay out the explanation. I presume those outlets won’t include the various censoring media.

So I’m curious.

This is another movie that might not be made at another time. The perpetrators know how they were tracked this time. So will they use burner phones? Will they avoid the multiple drop boxes per mule that they encouraged this time? That was to avoid the sudden overload in a single drop box, which would cause suspicion. If all the nearby drop boxes got, say, around 100 ballots in a day, and this one drop box got 1300, that would be an anomaly.

There’s also the fact that, while video surveillance of the drop boxes is required by law, most did not do it. Video coinciding with geotracking is enough evidence for an indictment. So—do you just “accidentally” fail to provide video? Seems likely.

True the Vote noticed mules during the Georgia runoff using latex gloves—after a case where the perpetrators were caught because of fingerprints on the ballots. So they change their method based on what was done to catch them in the past.

Back in May, I had something weird happen on my phone. I asked this question in a group, but didn’t find anyone who had experienced something similar. Anyway, here’s what I posted:

Sincere question, not sure who to ask: This past Friday I went to the internet on my phone, which I do less frequently than most. A notification popped up—which disappeared before I could figure out how to get a screenshot—telling me, as I recall, that my security agreement was changing. Companies I go to online would no longer be able to track me or purchase my tracking data.

Normally I’d say that’s a good thing. I already opt out of tracking wherever I notice that I can. But this was the week 2000 Mules came out. In that documentary, True the Vote (from here in Houston) used tracking data, available for purchase by companies, and/or used by law enforcement, to identify phone tracking data showing people who went from one mail-in ballot drop box to another, when it is illegal to drop off another person’s ballot.

So, was this announcement a normal phone update? Or was it a response to the knowledge that tracking data can locate illegal voting? And if it’s the latter, does that mean we won’t have the same means of tracking this form of illegal voting in November?

Maybe it was normal, and I’m being a bit paranoid. But the timing of it, just days after the movie premiered, seems odd. And I wonder if it could mean there’s movement to stop mules from being tracked the next time around.

You can find the movie and ways to stream it at https://2000mules.com/.

Here are a few extra videos related to this movie:

·        “EXCLUSIVE: Ballot Mules Funded by Obama-Linked NGOs Pouring Billions Into ‘Local Insurgencies’” June 3, 2022. 

o   Watch the full version on EpochTV May 13, 2022

·        “Patel Patriot Interviews Gregg Phillips” May 28, 2022. 

·        “2000 Mules: Why I Changed My Mind About the2020 Election | Dinesh D’Souza | POLITICS" The Rubin Report, June 5, 2022

·        “FILM REVIEW 2000 Donkeys by Delish” Mr. Reagan podcast, May 9, 2022. 

Chain-of-Custody Issues

There was voter fraud—enough to overturn the 2020 election, and maybe the Georgia runoff, and maybe a few since then. But mainly we’re concerned about that 2020 presidential election—and consequently also the upcoming midterm election.

Mail-in Ballot Problem

Dinesh D-Souza’s movie 2000 Mules lays out one particular type of voter fraud—related to mail-in ballots. The numbers are pretty staggering. True the Vote, the organization that did the investigations, set very high criteria: a “mule” had to visit at least five nonprofits related to getting out the vote in addition to at least ten mail-in ballot drop boxes. They were trying to eliminate anyone who coincidentally went by such locations. And with that criteria, five of the six states they looked at had more such illegal mail-in ballots that the vote margin, so they would be flipped. That finding alone is enough to overturn the 2020 election outcome.

illustration of someone mailing multiple ballots,
found in this August 29, 2020, New York Post article

But, seriously, who goes multiple times to that type of nonprofit and also happens to go to multiple mail-in ballot drop boxes—when it’s illegal to handle anyone’s ballot but your own? You could set the bar much lower, say maybe only five drop boxes. So they looked at that level of data too. And of course the numbers are staggering.

They looked at only 3% of the country—not to mention other types of voter fraud. What about the rest of the country where this could have been going on but was not looked at?

There’s a story from the New York Post, from August 29, 2020—before that election. This was brought back up via Mike Huckabee, in light of the 2000 Mules information coming out. The story is about a Democrat operative, who confesses (anonymously to reporter Jon Levine) that he has performed voter fraud for years, and describes the methods. He says it’s more the rule than the exception.

illustration of the parts included in a mail-in ballot,
image found in New York Post article from August 29, 2020

The article is full of details and verifications, as well as quite a few photos. Worth the read. But, anyway, here’s the summary of the article from the Huckabee post: 

“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes—it can make a difference,” this tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”

It’s a big operation. He said he had not only altered ballots himself but had led teams, mentoring at least 20 operatives who were active in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, which, of course, would turn out to be one of the battleground states at issue on Election Day 2020.

This operative, who said he'd been a Bernie Sanders supporter and no longer had a stake, said he’d come forward in the hope that states would fix their glaring security problems with mail-in ballots, because November 3 was going to be “a (bleeping) war.” I wonder if he had any idea then how bad it was going to get.

The Post includes his descriptions of how election-riggers do their stuff. For example, they can just make copies of the ballot itself, but they have to collect actual envelopes, because it's not possible to recreate those. That’s where vote harvesters come in, going from house to house, “helping” people by mailing their ballots for them, but steaming them open and using the real envelopes to mail the phony ballots. These they would “sprinkle” around numerous mailboxes in town.

He said sometimes postal employees are in on it. If they don’t like Trump, for example, and they work in an area that’s predominantly GOP, they can just “lose” those ballots. They can either dump all the mail in the trash or, if they have time, sift through their mail for ballots, and throw the ballots in the trash. (Or I would think they could take them to be steamed open if more envelopes are needed.)

Then, of course, there are the nursing homes. We’ve discussed how that works, but the Post article provides details.

Sometimes, if they’re in a state that doesn’t require ID, operatives will even go to polling places and vote in person. They go through publicly available information to find the names of registered voters who routinely skip elections, and vote using those names.

They also buy the votes of homeless people. This tipster went on to say that Michael Bloomberg's campaign spent roughly $174 per vote to win his third term as New York mayor. He likened this effort to a mafia organization, with the candidate himself typically kept in the dark about the details, to maintain “plausible deniability.”

This particular political insider even took credit for a helpful little idea that he says was put into practice: bending one corner of the ballot, where the signature appeared, to signal to Democrat Board of Election counters that this was one of “their” ballots and to let it go through.

Huckabee also passed along an additional story from just a couple of days ago, reported by Newsmax. A woman, Christina Repaci, was walking her dog and came upon an entire box of ballots, sitting on the sidewalk, apparently abandoned by the US Postal Service, since it was in one of their boxes.

Box of ballots found by woman in East Hollywood
screenshot from here

These 104 unopened mail-in ballots were in a U.S. Postal Service box, just abandoned there on the sidewalk. Sacredness of the vote, indeed.

Ms. Repaci didn’t know what to do about this; it was only thanks to her persistence that an official picked up these ballots from her. Of course, the chain of custody had long since been shot. The registrar’s office said not to worry, they’ve reissued ballots to all the people affected. But what if someone not quite as conscientious as Ms. Repaci had found the ballots and used them for, I don’t know, bird cage liners?

“Early signs indicate that this was an incident of mail theft and not a directed attempt at disrupting the election,” the registrar’s office said in a statement. To that I say, “How do you know?” I also say, “So what?” because either way, a box of votes that doesn't get counted can affect the outcome of a close election. Doesn't say much for mail-in voting. 

Whether intentional or accidental, if a ballot loses chain of custody, it is an illegal ballot; it cannot be legally counted. Mail-in ballots lose chain of custody between the time they leave the voter’s hands until they are received by an election official. Ostensibly the US Postal Service qualifies as handling that. But I don’t think they’re that reliable. We had other stories around the 2020 election of dumped ballots, and ballots transported across state lines. A truck driver for a contractor of the US Postal Service reported a trailer filled with 288,000 ballots disappeared.[i] But, as with so much election-related material, it wasn’t reported, and it didn’t get heard by a judge.

Our Own Chain-of-Custody Issues

In Texas, mail-in ballots are intended only for those who physically can’t make it to a polling place—at all, during early voting or on election day. This is likely to be someone out of town for an extended period of time or an invalid. It isn’t someone who is “scared of COVID” or too inconvenienced to vote somewhere in person. But in 2020 the replacement Harris County Clerk (after the elected one stepped down because of legal issues against her, and before we had an Election Administrator imposed on us by the County Judge and Commissioners Court) tried to send mail-in ballot applications to every voter on the non-cleaned-up voter rolls. He was stopped, but not before spending big bucks on printing, nor before he actually mailed quite a few.

So his next move was to make more drop-off locations. In theory, the mailbox is sufficient. But voters are also allowed to turn them in at the County Clerk’s office. He tried expanding it to dozens of locations, but I think he was limited to 12 or so. There should be a person from each party wherever and whenever votes are received, so his attempts to open them up, at short notice, to prevent Republican workers from being there was an obvious ploy. But, why would a person be fully capable of driving downtown to one of these various locations—during early voting—but not be able to go to one of the dozens of voting places? There shouldn’t have been such drop-off locations.

Anyway, back to chain-of-custody issues. We had a special election last Saturday, May 7, statewide for ballot propositions, plus in some places also for local jurisdictions, like school boards or water districts. (We also had one for our Emergency Services District, but they handled their own election in separate locations, which was inconvenient for voters, but was run smoothly and provided a vote count promptly.) The Harris County Election Administrator had to turn in her resignation after the March 1 Primary Election failure—so many things wrong that were simply incompetence.  However, she promised to stay on through June, which means she’s there to fail for both this special election last Saturday and the Primary Runoff Election on May 24. 

Chain-of-custody was the failure of choice last Saturday.

Dropping off ballots has been a problem every election since she got appointed. In November, which was a pretty limited election, mostly school boards and a few local races, they had everyone turn in their materials at one location, outdoors. This was at Reliant Stadium parking lot. They thought they had a neat system. You hand off your stuff from your car to the workers who receive it. But they set up lines such that, if someone ahead of you had an issue, no one could move until it was handled. We arrived fairly early, waited 45 minutes in line, and that was uncomfortable but not intolerable. People who got there later waited up to three hours. There were no restrooms; you’re stuck in your car. Some people got fed up and abandoned their election materials (including ballot boxes) on the sidewalk outside the building; those lost chain of custody.

In March, they thought, “Well, that didn’t work. Let’s go back to having multiple drop-off locations.” But they didn’t go back to multiple lines inside the various buildings; they did the outdoor thing again. With similar problems. We waited 45 minutes in line. Then we were told we were missing equipment; we were not. They were wrong. Months later they admitted that. But it was, again, not a smooth handoff.

Remember that election workers get to the polling place at 5:30 AM to prepare the polling place to open at 7:00 AM, as required by law. Polls close at 7:00 PM—plus processing any voters in line by 7:00 PM. Then there is shutdown. The new equipment is slower and more complicated to shut down. We’ve done it with the new machines three times now, and we’re pretty quick. But it’s taking us about 30-45 minutes longer than the old system. Election workers haven’t been able to get dinner yet. So then you add on these extra hours and/or long drives, and you discourage a lot of workers, especially the older ones who think, “I’ve put in my time, and I just don’t want to go through this anymore.”

This past week the County wanted to try yet another new idea. “Hey, how about if we have someone pick up the materials from every polling place?” They decided to use the Constables for that, the local law enforcement. But, again, there were failures. In our case, the Constables assigned to pick ours up were stuck at another polling location where the workers had trouble figuring out how to print out their tally and shut everything down; and the Constables, instead of taking care of the other locations on their route and then going back, stayed and waited. So our polling place Presiding Judge and Alternate Judge had to wait the extra two hours until the Constables came. I heard that others waited even a couple of hours longer than we did.

The real problem came when the Election Administrator (the one who resigned but hasn’t gotten out of the way) decided that, since there weren’t enough Constables, they’d just hire other people. Some of these other people were County Sheriff Deputies, which seem as reliable as the Constables. But others were simply County employees, from whatever department. Law enforcement officers ought to be trusted not to break the law. But I have no such reason to trust some random Democrat-hired county employee.

Harris County Republican Party Chair Cindy Siegel has called them out for breaking the law. The law requires the Election Judge to hand off custody of the ballots and equipment only to another Election Official—somebody from the Ballot Board hired to do receiving and counting. There should be signatures to verify this handoff; there were not.

That means the Election Administrator actually eliminated chain of custody on all Election Day ballots. Oops.

So who knows what the drop-off procedure will be for the May 24 Primary Runoff Election. But it won’t be one of the past failures. They’ll want to fail in a whole new way. If it’s enough of a spectacular failure, maybe they’ll use it for the November Midterm Election.

As my friend, ballot security expert Alan Vera says, “Incompetence is the perfect camouflage for malfeasance.”

They are trying to get us to quit, so they can hire their cronies, who will “count” the ballots the way they want—keeping them in power perpetually. We must not quit.

In November, Harris County Republicans are planning to put a poll watcher at every polling location. In the past we’ve concentrated mainly on troubled areas. But now, with county-wide voting, every place might be a troubled area. We might get a poll watcher at our location for the first time. This is not to show that we are distrusted; it is to show that we all care that the law is followed. 

Alan Vera told us precinct chairs on Monday night that it is all hands on deck this November. No one should be sitting home on election day. Most precinct chairs will be running their elections. So they'll need to recruit other poll workers and an army of poll watchers.

Free and fair elections—what a concept! 

---

[i] “Whistleblower USPS Truck Driver Reveals Trailer Filled with up to 288K Ballots Disappeared” NTD News, Dec. 6, 2020. The original link no longer works, but I found the archived video here. 

Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation—and Censorship

I looked up the government’s definitions for these three types of information the new Disinformation Governance Board is concerning themselves with:

·        Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

·        Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

·        Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

Notice that this includes false information you didn’t know was false (a mistaken belief), false information you knew was false (a lie), and true information that the government deems evil. In other words, it includes all information, true or false, that the government comes up with a reason to disapprove of.

You’ve been hearing it called the Ministry of Truth, which wouldn’t make sense, since they want to hide inconvenient truth, not declare it—unless you’re familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

image from a T-shirt, found here

In that novel, the Ministry of Truth is the censoring department deciding what people are allowed to know or say or even think. Truth, of course, has nothing to do with it. But their language, Newspeak, is a way of saying things to hide what the government is doing, so as to control the people.

Ministry of Truth is a description of the kinds of organizations found in other regimes:

·        The Nazis’ Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, established 1933.

·        Glavlit, the Soviet Union’s propaganda arm, under Stalin.

·        The Kuomintang (KMT) of the Chinese Communist Party.

·        The Juche ideology in North Korea.

·        Castro’s propaganda apparatus in Cuba.

Of Cuba’s propaganda apparatus, Wikipedia says, “Today the Cuban government maintains an intricate propaganda machine that includes a global news agency, magazines, newspapers, broadcasting facilities, publishing houses, front groups, and other miscellaneous organizations that all stem from the modest beginnings of Castro's revolutionary propaganda machine.” Add in a total control of social media, on top of all other media, and a government just might find totalitarianism easy to accomplish and maintain. 

According to the government’ website, they are calling this—this writing that I do here, in the safety of obscurity—terrorism; domestic terrorism. Criticism of the government—including criticism of a current administration while they are undermining our Constitution—is considered a form of terrorism. 

On their website, they say there’s a focus on elections, so today so will I.

They do not bother about preventing election fraud. Instead, they are concerned with conversations that undermine trust in the election system. In other words, instead of increasing trust by increasing election security, they are targeting those who want to increase election security. Expressing questions about things that were not done according to law, or that left open the possibility of fraud, are on the list—I guess qualifying as malinformation, which is true stuff they don’t like.

 

2000 Mules

In a spirit of rebellion against Big Brother, then, I suggest you find a theater to go see Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary 2000 Mules, which details a particular type of voter fraud, the kind that combines ballot harvesting and/or weak rules surrounding mail-in ballots and unmanned drop boxes. It’s illegal to handle anyone’s ballot but your own. So when you find people going from drop box to drop box—particularly after stopping at Democratic headquarters or other election fortification nonprofits—then you look at those.

True the Vote, the organization from here in Houston that taught me how to be a poll watcher, gathered the evidence. They thought to use geo-tracking data from cell phones, the kind of widely used information purchased by companies for marketing purposes. They targeted a few cities, I think five around the country. And they eliminated any chance of coincidental traffic, such as a person dropping off their own ballot and then by happenstance going to a store near the next drop box. They’ll spell out the details, but I think their targets had to go to at least five drop boxes plus the nonprofits.

Then, where it was available, they got public security camera footage, targeting the time stamps when the “mules” were dropping off ballots. Then they had not only phone tracking but photos of the person and what they were doing. There could be no excuses like, “I loaned my phone to my brother,” or “I was just going to that store there; I wasn’t even using the drop box.”

screenshot from the 2000 Mules movie trailer

The documentary is showing this week (May 2 and May 4). Tickets are only available at their website, not at theaters, so there can be no intimidation of theater employees. Unfortunately, I hesitated to coordinate with my husband, and all tickets within driving distance were sold out for May 2, when we were available. There will also be a livestream on Saturday, May 7. That is an election day here in Texas, so poll workers will miss that opportunity. I’m guessing that there will be additional opportunities after this initial viewing, because the idea is to get all the election fraud deniers to see it.

It appears that just the cities investigated, with the limitations True the Vote imposed on themselves, provided enough instances of voter fraud to have flipped the election.

There’s a Townhall article here. 

 

Another Data Scientist Proves Voter Fraud

While we’re on this to-be-censored subject, I saw yet another data scientist’s take on election fraud, which seems to me a reasonable focus for investigation. He has found an anomaly in the machine counting that took place in 2020. The data scientist is Jeffrey O’Donnell, whose company is Ordros Analytics. You can see the full interview here. 

This story is out of Mesa County, Colorado. Their Dominion machines were due for an update in May 2021. But a wise county clerk, Tina Peters, thought to ask what that update would do to the data already on the machines. Federal law requires keeping all election-related materials for 22 months after an election; Colorado requires 25 months. It’s fortunate she asked, because that update was going to do a clean wipe of the hard drive. So they took an image of the hard drive first—that is, an exact digital replica of the hard drive. It’s a process used by organizations to backup their data, to preserve it, or to present it elsewhere such as in a court proceeding. It’s how we are learning what is on Hunter Biden’s laptop without having the actual laptop; images were made and shared. (I do not suggest looking for that image, since there’s illegal stuff on Biden’s hard drive.)

Anyway, they took this digital image of what was on their machines after the 2020 election. And, since they could, they made it available, in case somebody out there wanted to go through the data. Friends of O’Donnell thought he was the right person to take that on.

The first step of a computer audit is to look at the numbers and see if they add up. They did not. He tells the story, using the timeline:

They started counting ballots on the 19th of October. And these were, of course, mail-in ballots that had come in at that point. And over the next three days until halfway through the 21st, they had counted about over 25,000 mail-in ballots at that point. And what happened is that at 2:00 or so in the afternoon, something woke up inside the machine.

This was not caused by anything the clerks did. This was not a normal procedure. Some bit of code inside the Dominion machine woke up and decided that it needed to create some new databases, copy some ballot information to those new databases—not all but some of that—and essentially went through that reprocessing of about 20,000 of the 25,000 ballots.

We know that they are reprocessed, because there’s a thing called adjudication, or manual adjudication. And that’s simply that, when a ballot gets put into the system, if the computer can figure out what the voter meant to do by the dots, then we’re fine. It registers those votes. If it can’t, then it kicks them out to a couple humans that have to look at them and at the image of the ballot and see if they can determine what the voter meant to vote for. That’s what we mean by adjudication. Or, I call it manual adjudication just to kind of make clear it’s a human being doing it.

Well, when those 20,000 or so were run through again, the number of ballots that were kicked out for this manual adjudication process wasn’t the same.

Now, the same ballots run through the same computer with the same software should have had the same results. And the only way to explain that is, something had changed in the ballots at that point. Which, to me, points to where— Well, what I’ve told you so far is already proof of ballot manipulation. That it went through this process that nobody told it to do and nobody— There’s no way to explain it terms of normal processing.

It's unauthorized. And it is on a very deep level, illegal. And by the fact that these were reprocessed, then, if it had the opportunity then to overwrite any votes that were counted the first time it was through, it was a do-over on those 20,000. And then after that was done, it just kind of went on to the rest of the election as normal.

the anomalous reprocessing in Mesa County, Colorado during mail-in ballot counting 2020
screenshot from the O'Donnell video interview

Lest you think this was a one-off, an anomaly, a “mouse running across the keyboard” sort of scenario, there’s more. Mesa County had an additional election in April 2021, with mail-in ballots starting to be counted in late March. The same anomaly happened again, in the same way. For this one, O’Donnell says,

They were about 40% through the election [the count of existing mail-in ballots]. And suddenly this rogue process woke up. It can't read some of the ballots, and reprocessed and left others in there. It was, you know, different numbers obviously, because it was a different election and a smaller number, but it was the same unauthorized process that occurred again.

So that meant they needed to look deeper. He has spent the last seven months preparing his report. And he calls this Mesa County information the Rosetta Stone that is giving them the clues to know what to look for in other elections.

They are finding some serious anomalies. There’s what he calls the Law of Big Numbers. He explains:

The best way to think about that is as if you flip a coin and it comes on some coin twice; it comes up once heads and once tails. So, if you look at, I have half heads and half tails. If I flip it again the third time, whichever one comes up, it's going to be I have a third now of one and two thirds. So it's a big jump from 50% to 66% or whatever percent.

But imagine if you flip the coin a thousand times and you're keeping track of what percentage of heads tails. On the thousand and first flip, that count where you get the heads or tails of that coin can only affect the percentage by 1/1000^th, because you've already had a thousand flips into that data.

What they saw was that, in the counting of mail-in ballots, after a large number were counted, you’d expect only a very little affect in percentage with each additional ballot counted—because you’d expect some randomness in how they were turned in. But what you actually see is, late in the process a huge percentage go a certain way and no other.

As he explains, in olden days of voter fraud, the fraudulent actors would wait until well into the process to find out what number they needed in order to accomplish their win, and they would suddenly come up with those ballots. Someone comes in with—"these boxes of ballots I had forgotten were in my shed” (actually happened in Washington State a couple of decades ago).

These days it’s less physical. It’s in the numbers being counted. They’ve done a hyper-accurate calculation of how many votes they need under what circumstances; they’ve pre-loaded the expectation into the machine. And when the machine sees they’re not going to reach their plan, the algorithm kicks in to “reprocess” ballots to get a new count.

When we should expect to see very little affect on the percentage with each additional vote—

Instead, we see wild rises and falls in the last portion of these races.

That's the fingerprint, or one of the fingerprints, that we see once we're out 100,000 votes or so…. Suddenly have a swing, and that swing can be frankly in either direction.

Theoretically it could be either direction. In this particular election it was one particular direction—the Democrat direction. He adds, in case it’s not clear yet,

This is an unnatural pattern of voting. This is not how people vote. This is not how large numbers work. It points to manipulation. There has to be something manipulating the votes in order to get this kind of pattern of voting.

Theoretically, you could have a place where this unnatural pattern happens. You could get a sudden string of 100 “tails” in your coin flip following a randomly even first 1000 tosses. But you wouldn’t see it over and over in different places. Other places would even out the percentages. The odds are so astronomically against this anomaly that it’s impossible for it to happen naturally.

When asked whether they’d found this anomaly elsewhere around the country, the answer is a definitive Yes:

We have found the same fingerprints in all states, all counties, and all vendors that we have looked at so far. And it’s considerable now.

He's saying it isn't just Dominion machines; it's every counting machine they've looked at. 

A machine to count votes—its one task—ought to be fairly simple. These machines are not simple. They contain 300 or so complex tables in dozens of separate files and folders—only one table of which is the actual vote count. But the machines seem to be whirring along, sorting votes, apparently to keep better track of when an algorithm needs to kick in and reprocess some votes.

O’Donnell was asked where his report and the investigations in other states are all going. He says,

I think that things are finally moving at comparatively breakneck speed as we get close to the 22-month period, where they are allowed. As I've said, that we're right now, I guess four months from the biggest coordinated bonfire since Nero burned down Rome.

And so everyone—that I deal with anyway—is fully aware of this. And there’s really a three-pronged effort going on. And there's no reason why we can't do all three at the same time, because we've got a lot of good people. And one is exposing everything about 2020.

I still think we're going to see a number of states decertify. Unfortunately, I can't wave my magic wand and make it happen, but I think it's going to happen. That's going to have a huge emotional, if no other, impact on the process and start the ball rolling at the same time.

 

Recommendations

O'Donnell suggests we learn from 2020, “to make sure that they don't do the same things in 2022.” He recommends several things: don’t use machines to count, for one. Humans haven’t actually forgotten how to count. 

I would interject here that it isn’t quite that simple. I had a state rep who told the story of his first run for office. He lost by a few votes. An alternate judge and clerk of his party followed the presiding judge and another clerk to drop off the ballot box, back when they were paper ballots. The relatively short trip took hours. They could see the people in the car with the ballot box, shaking it and removing ballots they didn’t like—until they had taken out as many of the ballots for my rep that they needed for their candidate to win. So you’ve still got to deal with chain of custody, counting with both parties present and witnessing, and you need a definitive way of deciding what a ballot says. But all that might be doable—with willing people of good intention.

He also recommends getting rid of universal mail-in ballots. We’ll probably always have mail-in ballots for people documented to be out of town or in nursing homes, etc. But that should be a small number so that it can’t likely sway an election.

We ought to clean the voter rolls—accurately. We shouldn’t be outsourcing that to ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center, a Democrat-aligning nonprofit) or any non-local entity. Some states had thousands of double voters—people who have changed their registration, because of getting married or some other reason, so they get a new registration and the old one is dormant; but both show up as voters who voted in the election. Thousands of these in some states—in addition to all the other election issues.

And of course we need Voter ID laws.

O’Donnell suggests we ought to train people the way we train bank tellers—not to assume that nobody would ever do anything wrong, but to think that, if there’s a way to game the system, somebody’s going to do it, so you’ve got to be vigilant.

He’d like to see total transparency. Like with that image of the Mesa County election—anyone could see it, go through the data on their own. You don’t include data that connects the voter to how that person voted, but everything else ought to be available for viewing. The only reason not to do that is that you’re hiding something.

 

Conclusion: The 2020 Election Was Stolen

Let’s note that Colorado wasn’t one of the few swing states in question in 2020. It was just another place using those machines. What would we find if we did this careful look at every location using voting machines?

If you look at only the six counties in the swing states, you have enough evidence to show the election outcome was rigged. If you look at just the evidence of illegal mail-in ballots in 2000 Mules, you’ve got more than enough to show the election outcome was rigged. The various states that held hearings to hear about the voting irregularities—many showed enough evidence to indicate that their election results should not have been certified; decertifying those few states would have changed the outcome.

I think anyone who looks honestly at that election can see that the sitting President of the United States was ousted by voter fraud. You might call that a coup. Many people knew that right away—well ahead of January 6^th. Evidence continues to verify that the election was stolen.

We don’t have a solution for this unprecedented theft of our country and our freedoms. But awareness is a first step.

And we become aware when there is the free exchange of information. You cannot restore the people’s confidence in the election process until you make the system transparent and honest—something they might call malinformation: truth that they don’t like. But it’s what we’re going to have to insist on.