Source: ELECTION NIGHT ERRORS – HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
ElectionNightFacts Published December 12, 2020
Data scientists uncover and call into question the many errors from election night 2020. What are the questions we should be asking? Did your vote count? How many times or at all? How many errors are too many? When do votes ever go negative? Who is responsible for all of these mistakes? Don’t we have a right to know?
Friday, December 11, 2020 by: Mike Adams
(Natural News) All the pieces are falling into place for a Trump victory. The circle is nearly complete.
In today’s Situation Update (for Dec. 11th), we bring you an astonishing collection of breaking news items, evidentiary documents and insider information that reveals President Trump and the DoD are winning the war against the deep state and the CIA.
President Trump recently tweeted that the attempted coup by the deep state would “escalate dramatically” as the American people realize, “A coup is taking place in front of our eyes, and the public can’t take this anymore.”
More than anyone else, Trump knows the escalation is nearly here, and he is preparing DoD, Special Forces and American patriots for the “final battle” that will determine the future of this constitutional republic.
Listen to my Situation Update here, and read the full detailed story below, which outlines the current scenarios involving SCOTUS, the Insurrection Act, the DoD, China and more.
Brighteon.com/3a8d67a0-5617-4b7b-9d9e-dedcd24a8e65
Hear all my Situation Update reports at the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com:
https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport
In addition, Dominion Voting Systems is shown to have sold intellectual property patents to communist China via the HSBC Bank in Canada. Importantly, one of the properties of at least one patent deals with ballot “authentication and verification.”
Guess who the inventor is? Eric Coomer, the very same radical left-wing corporate guy who promised that he had fixed the election so that Trump wouldn’t win. This same man, Eric Coomer, was then brought in by Georgia’s corrupt Sectary of State Brad Raffensperger to be a “witness” to defend all the last-minute software changes that were made to the Dominion voting machines used in Georgia to steal the election.
Actual quote from Eric Coomer: “Don’t worry about the election — Trump’s not gonna win!”
The document reveals how Dominion vote tabulation machines alter election outcomes through a complex mechanism that obscures the original votes and produces a “win” for the pre-selected candidate. It even features a step called “decorate” which is all about formatting the results into something that seems believable:
The conclusion on all this is jaw-dropping. From the sworn statement (emphasis added):
In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber security. This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results.
The Kraken has struck.
Don’t forget, either, that China owns Dominion Voting Systems. This means our national election was run on machines owned by a foreign enemy who has already compromised and corrupted one of the candidates: Joe Biden. Of course they rigged the election for “their” candidate whom they could control after a “victory.”
Source: Ep. 2352b – Art Of The Deal, SC Just Gave Trump The Answer, 2018 EO On Deck, Blackout Coming
Trump has now received the answer he needed from the Supreme Court. The plan worked perfectly. The China buildup is now happening, the leaks on how China interfered and how government officials received instructions from the Chinese to interfere in the election. The [DS] is now pushing the Red1, the removal of Trump’s twitter account and then we will see a blackout of social media. Be prepared.
(Natural News) Is it safe for elderly people to get a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine? Not according to Dr. Helen “Keipp” Talbot of Vanderbilt University, who was the lone “no” vote on a CDC advisory panel that ultimately decided to recommend the experimental jab for old folks.
Believe it or not, CNN recently gave Dr. Talbot a platform to express her concerns about the risks involved with giving COVID-19 vaccines to people who are frail and vulnerable. Since such folks have the highest risk of injury or death, is it really safe to jab them with something that could kill them?
Dr. Talbot is not so sure, and thus does not recommend that patients living in long-term care facilities especially get vaccinated, at least not until more is known about vaccine adverse effects.
“Odd woman out, I guess,” Dr. Talbot is quoted as saying to her colleagues. “I still struggle with this. This was not an easy vote.”
In the event that large numbers of long-term care residents suddenly start dying from the jab, public perception of its safety and effectiveness would be tarnished, she worries. So it is not that Dr. Talbot opposes the vaccine, per se, but rather that she does not want people to become scared of it if mass deaths occur.
For this reason, some are calling on healthier people to receive the shot first. If it appears as though the vaccines are safe and effective in people who are young and vibrant, then those who are old and frail will be more likely to join them in rolling up their sleeves.
For more related news about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), be sure to check out Pandemic.news.
To be clear, neither CNN nor Dr. Talbot appear to be concerned about the actual safety of old people. What they care about is the optics of COVID-19 vaccination in terms of safety and effectiveness.
If non-elderly people see elderly people dying in droves from the jab, the non-elderly will be much less likely to get vaccinated, in other words.
“Since they haven’t been studied in people in those populations, we don’t know how well the vaccine will work for them,” says Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition, a group that supports frontline workers who will be tasked with administering COVID-19 vaccines.
“We know that most vaccines don’t work nearly as well in a frail elderly person as they would in someone who is fit and vigorous, even if they happen to be the same age.”
Dr. Moore went on to admit that there is no way to truly know if COVID-19 vaccines will benefit the elderly in any way because those at the highest risk were not included in the test groups.
“There’s a question about the direct benefit of the vaccine, if given to people who live in those facilities, because we haven’t studied how well it works in that group yet.”
So much for science. At the same time, anyone who dies following vaccination for COVID-19 probably died from something else, according to Dr. Moore, especially if they were already nearing the end of their lives.
“One of the things we want to make sure people understand is that they should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility,” Dr. Moore contends.
“That would be something we would expect, as a normal occurrence, because people die frequently in nursing homes.”
THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY LOCKED AND FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY. IT HAS BEEN UNLOCKED AT THE PERSONAL REQUEST OF STEVE QUAYLE — From a source deep inside the US Supreme Court as they discussed the pending Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania et. al. . . .
“Hal, as you know I am a clerk for one of the Justices on SCOTUS. Today was like nothing we have ever seen. The justices are arguing loudly behind closed doors.
The Justices met in a closed and sealed room, as is standard.
Usually it is very calm, however today we could hear screaming all the way down the hall.
They met in person, because they didn’t trust telephonic meeting as secure.
Chief Justice Roberts was screaming
“Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?”
“Don’t tell me about Bush v. Gore, we weren’t dealing with riots then”
“You are forgetting what your role here is Neil, and I don’t want to hear from the two junior justices anymore. I will tell you how you will vote.”
Justice Clarence Thomas says “This is the end of Democracy, John.”
When they left the room, Roberts, the Libs and Kavanugh had big smiles. Alito and Thomas were visibly upset. ACB and Gorsuch didn’t seem fazed at all.”
Clearly Chief Justice Roberts is intimidated by the ATNIFA/Left-wing rioting. Well, one has to wonder if maybe he can intimidated more by some actions of the right wing?
I’m not going to bother doing that or anything else, and neither should any of you, but I’m just wondering, is all.
Source: The COVID Vaccine Transhuman Agenda Is Being Executed At “Warp Speed”!
Globalist agenda to combine man with machine until we lose our humanity.
Source: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Biden’s Victory – The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.
The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
The order, coupled with another one on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that a conservative court with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump refused to be drawn into the extraordinary effort by the president and many prominent members of his party to deny his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his victory.
It was the latest and most significant setback for Mr. Trump in a litigation campaign that was rejected by courts at every turn.
Texas’ lawsuit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, challenged election procedures in four states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It asked the court to bar those states from casting their electoral votes for Mr. Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ legislatures. That would have required the justices to throw out millions of votes.
Mr. Trump has said he expected to prevail in the Supreme Court, after rushing the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October in part in the hope that she would vote in Mr. Trump’s favor in election disputes.
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said of the election a few days after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in September. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”
He was right that an election dispute would end up in the Supreme Court. But he was quite wrong to think the court, even after he appointed a third of its members, would do his bidding. And with the Electoral College set to meet on Monday, Mr. Trump’s efforts to change the outcome of the election will soon be at an end.
Mr. Trump’s campaign did not immediately issue a statement. In an appearance on the conservative network Newsmax soon after the decision was announced, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, said that the campaign’s legal effort would continue, insisting that his team had originally planned for “four or five separate cases.”
“We’re not finished, believe me,” he said with a laugh at the end of the interview.
The president, who at a White House Hanukkah party earlier in the week eagerly mentioned the pending court case in his remarks, was scheduled to attend another holiday party around the time the ruling came down. But around 8:30 p.m., guests were informed that Mr. Trump would not be coming down from the residence to speak.
Mr. Trump weighed in later on Twitter. “The Supreme Court really let us down,” he said. “No Wisdom, No Courage!”
Friday’s order was not quite unanimous. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a brief statement on a technical point. But it was nonetheless a comprehensive rebuke to Mr. Trump and his allies. It was plain that the justices had no patience for Texas’ attempt to enlist the court in an effort to tell other states how to run their elections.
The majority ruled that Texas could not file its lawsuit at all. “The state of Texas’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing,” the court’s order said.
Justice Alito, taking a slightly different approach, wrote that the court was not free immediately to shut down lawsuits filed by states directly in the court. “In my view,” he wrote, “we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
But that was as far as those two justices were willing to go. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief,” Justice Alito wrote, “and I express no view on any other issue.”
Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers had anticipated the court would give the president and the Republican attorneys general something that could be characterized as supportive, in the form of a dissent or a lengthy commentary. Instead, there was simply the brief statement from the two justices.
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.
Despite the court ruling, Mr. Trump’s campaign plans to continue describing the election outcome as illegitimate. On Friday night, it announced that it would be running ads on YouTube, which has started accepting political ads again after a moratorium, making that very case.
In the Texas case, the Supreme Court received more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs and motions seeking to intervene, from Mr. Trump, from coalitions of liberal and conservative states, from politicians and from scholars.
Among them was a brief filed by more than 100 House Republicans who fell in line to claim that the general election — the same one in which most of them were re-elected — had been “riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.” More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general expressed similar support on Wednesday.
Legal experts almost universally dismissed Texas’ suit as an unbecoming stunt. In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.
In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort. “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.
On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with his own brief. “Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”
Claims that the election was tainted by widespread fraud have been debunked by Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, William P. Barr, who said this month that the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Some 20 states led by Democrats, in a brief supporting the four battleground states, urged the Supreme Court “to reject Texas’ last-minute attempt to throw out the results of an election decided by the people and securely overseen and certified by its sister states.”
Georgia, which Mr. Biden won by less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million cast, said in its brief that it had handled its election with integrity and care. “This election cycle,” the brief said, “Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do: it implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”
Starting even before Election Day, Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have filed nearly five dozen challenges to the handling, casting and counting of votes in courts in at least eight different states.
They generally lost those cases, often drawing blistering rebukes from the judges who heard them. Along the way Mr. Trump has not come close to overturning the election results in a single state, let alone the minimum of three he would need to seize victory from Mr. Biden.
The first batch of actions preceded the election and sought to end or pare back voting measures that states across the country had put in place to deal with the coronavirus crisis. In Texas, for instance, Republicans pursued a failed effort in federal court to stop drive-through voting in Harris County, home to Houston. A similar move was made in Pennsylvania to stop the state from accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Mr. Trump and his allies switched tactics after the election, filing a barrage of suits in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Georgia claiming that all manner of fraud had compromised the vote results.
They made accusations that truckloads of illegal ballots were brought in under cover of darkness to a convention center in Detroit; that poll workers in Atlanta were given suitcases full of fake ballots for Mr. Biden; that Iran and China, working with local elections officials, had hacked into and manipulated algorithms in voting machines.
While some of these claims were supported by sworn statements from witnesses, judge after judge in case after case ruled that the evidence was not persuasive, credible or anywhere near enough to give Mr. Trump the extraordinary relief he requested: a judicial order overturning the results of an election.
What is left is a judicial mopping-up exercise. Several suits that the president and his supporters have lost in lower courts are now on appeal, in both the state and federal systems, but the appellate process is quickly running up against a crucial deadline on Monday when the Electoral College meets and Mr. Biden is expected to prevail in the voting, all but sealing the results of the election.
Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Chris Cameron from Washington.
Source: Official Government Report: Australian Covid Vaccines Spread HIV
Alex Jones breaks down the news of Australia publicly abandoning their Covid vaccine as recipients were testing positive for HIV.
