Post Your Voter Fraud Evidence Here

[NurseGoodVol]

Trump's 2020 presidential campaign hired a research firm to probe the results for election fraud but found no evidence, with the findings kept away from the public: WaPo

This is the Trump-iest story ever ....

****************************************
****************************************

A research firm hired by former President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign to validate the former president's claims of election fraud instead was unable to find evidence to support his theories, nor were the findings released to the public, according to the Washington Post.

The Berkeley Research Group was commissioned by the Trump campaign to analyze the voting data from six states to probe whether voter fraud or any irregularities had occurred during the 2020 election. Areas of focus for the probe were voter machine malfunctions, allegations that a mass of deceased individuals had voted in the election, and other evidence that could point to a Trump victory, per the report.

The Trump campaign envisioned using evidence from the report to bolster the then-president's claims in the public arena and in court.

But individuals with knowledge of the situation told The Post that the results didn't line up with what the Trump team had sought, and the research groups' findings were subsequently not disclosed to the public.

Roughly a dozen people at the Berkeley Research Group were part of a team analyzing the Trump campaign's claims, per the report, which included econometricians, who utilize mathematics and statistics to model outcomes.

The work was completed after the November 2020 election, during the remaining weeks of the year, and right before the January 6, 2021, riot at the United States Capitol.

Since his loss to President Joe Biden, Trump has continued to insist that he was the true victor in the contest, despite the lack of evidence of any widespread fraud.

Biden won the key swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- which were part of the Berkeley analysis -- but all were long deemed to be highly competitive during that presidential cycle.

"They looked at everything : change of addresses , illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting, people voting twice, machines being tampered with, ballots that were sent to vacant addresses that were returned and voted," said an individual familiar with the research who spoke with The Post.

"Literally anything that you could think of : Voter turnout anomalies, date of birth anomalies, whether dead people voted. If there was anything under the sun that could be thought of, they looked at it," the individual added.

According to four individuals who spoke with the newspaper, the findings were not what Trump officials were expecting from the analysis.

The researchers felt that there were some voting anomalies in several of the states and pointed to particular laws which may have been sidestepped, but they didn't feel as though it was enough to change the outcome of the election.

An individual with knowledge of the findings told The Post that the Trump team pushed for at least a dozen hypothesis to be tested.

"None of these were significant enough," the individual told the newspaper. "Just like any election, there are always errors, omissions and irregularities. It was nowhere close enough to what they wanted to prove, and it actually went in both directions."

A spokesperson for Berkeley Research Group told The Post : "Our experts provide independent and objective factual analysis and as a matter of firm policy, we do not comment on client engagements or on privileged and confidential matters."

After the November 2022 midterms, which saw many pro-Trump election deniers stumble at the ballot box, the former president proceeded to launch his 2024 campaign.

Trump is so far the only declared major Republican in the contest. But it won't be for long, as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to join the GOP field on Wednesday at a campaign lunch in Charleston.

*****************************************
*****************************************

Basically, the 2020 Donald Trump Presidential Campaign paid The Berkeley Research Group to help them prove that they had been cheated out of the election. The Trump campaign received their findings prior to January 6, 2021 ... but since they didn't conclude that Trump had truly won the election ... the Trump campaign kept those objective findings (which they had paid for) a secret, while Trump pressed on with the rally at the Capitol on January 6th, and his lies that the 2020 Presidential Election had been rigged against him.

The January 6th "Stop the Steal" rally at the Capitol was based on a lie ... and Trump knew it.

But individuals with knowledge of the situation told The Post that the results didn't line up with what the Trump team had sought, and the research groups' findings were subsequently not disclosed to the public.
Those darn anonymous sources again….

 

[BowlBrother85]

But individuals with knowledge of the situation told The Post that the results didn't line up with what the Trump team had sought, and the research groups' findings were subsequently not disclosed to the public.
Those darn anonymous sources again….

That is not a fair critique of the report. We know who the research firm is. They are specifically named as being The Berkeley Research Group. The 12 individuals who worked on the probe would not be hard to identify either. That is not a large firm. This report should be easy to fact-check, and de-bunk if it isn't true.

 

[Wireless1]

That is not a fair critique of the report. We know who the research firm is. They are specifically named as being The Berkeley Research Group. The 12 individuals who worked on the probe would not be hard to identify either. That is not a large firm. This report should be easy to fact-check, and de-bunk if it isn't true.

I think the greater risk is the firm and their researchers future employment outlook. Divulging confidential client funded information puts them a risk of future business

 

[BowlBrother85]

I think the greater risk is the firm and their researchers future employment outlook. Divulging confidential client funded information puts them a risk of future business

That is but a small angle .... another angle is that prior to January 6, 2021, Trump knew damn well that he had not been cheated out of the 2020 election, and yet he persisted with calling for the "Stop the Steal" rally in front of the White House anyway. During that rally he continued to claim that he had lost the election as a result of fraud. He knew that wasn't true ... and then he called for a march down to the Capitol, to protest the outcome of an election, which he knew he had lost legitimately.

... and all this time, he has kept the Berkeley Research Group's findings a secret, because they expose his lies ... and his premeditation to lie. The fraud here is Trump; not the election.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

That is not a fair critique of the report. We know who the research firm is. They are specifically named as being The Berkeley Research Group. The 12 individuals who worked on the probe would not be hard to identify either. That is not a large firm. This report should be easy to fact-check, and de-bunk if it isn't true.

It implied the unknown sources weren’t one of the dirty dozen.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It implied the unknown sources weren’t one of the dirty dozen.

It said "individuals with knowledge of the situation" and "an individual with knowledge of the findings" ... that isn't implying anything. It is being deliberately vague. That could be a member of the Berkeley Research Group, or someone who is associated with a member of the Berkeley Research Group.

In any event, having the identity of the research group itself, makes the report possible to verify.

 

[VolinWayne]

Get rid of the machines


2022 Midterm Race Overturned After Ballot Counting Machine Error - League of Power

 

[BowlBrother85]

Get rid of the machines


2022 Midterm Race Overturned After Ballot Counting Machine Error - League of Power

Ocean Township NJ school board race may flip after election error

More like ... hire better technicians. The error which you are alluding to, was a human error, on the part of the technician who installed the election software.

From the 1st paragraph :

"A human error that occurred during the installation of election software resulted in an error in the tabulation of the votes in the township's Board of Education race this past November, and will force a recount that could change who won."


*****************************************
*****************************************


https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/0...n-into-monmouth-county-voting-irregularities/

From the 2nd paragraph :

"Last week, the New Jersey Globe reported a voting tabulation error in six Monmouth County voting districts appeared to have changed the results of an Ocean Township's school board race after an error made by a technician for the district's voting machine vendor caused some votes to be counted twice."

 

[NurseGoodVol]

It said "individuals with knowledge of the situation" and "an individual with knowledge of the findings" ... that isn't implying anything. It is being deliberately vague. That could be a member of the Berkeley Research Group, or someone who is associated with a member of the Berkeley Research Group.

In any event, having the identity of the research group itself, makes the report possible to verify.

They looked at everything: change of addresses, illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting, people voting twice, machines being tampered with, ballots that were sent to vacant addresses that were returned and voted," said an individual familiar with the research who spoke with The Post.

"Literally anything you could think of. Voter turnout anomalies, date of birth anomalies, whether dead people voted. If there was anything under the sun that could be thought of, they looked at it," the individual added.

Looks like it wasn’t one of the researchers from the 12. Like I said, another unknown source.

 

[BowlBrother85]

They looked at everything: change of addresses, illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting, people voting twice, machines being tampered with, ballots that were sent to vacant addresses that were returned and voted," said an individual familiar with the research who spoke with The Post.

"Literally anything you could think of. Voter turnout anomalies, date of birth anomalies, whether dead people voted. If there was anything under the sun that could be thought of, they looked at it," the individual added.

Looks like it wasn’t one of the researchers from the 12. Like I said, another unknown source.

Like I said before, THE BERKELEY RESEARCH GROUP IS NAMED.

.... and that could very easily be someone within the Berkeley Research Group, who didn't have a role in the tests that were being conducted on behalf of the 2020 Trump campaign, but had access to their findings, as an employee of the firm would.

With the name of the firm having been disclosed within the article, this report is easily fact-checked, and should be easy to either verify or de-bunk, by simply knowing the specific firm that allegedly conducted the audit.

It is not the same thing as a report which sticks only to unnamed sources for the purpose of making fact-checking difficult; if not impossible.

 

[VolinWayne]

I didn't find out when any of these issues got resolved

 

[MarcoVol]

Thread

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Like I said before, THE BERKELEY RESEARCH GROUP IS NAMED.

.... and that could very easily be someone within the Berkeley Research Group, who didn't have a role in the tests that were being conducted on behalf of the 2020 Trump campaign, but had access to their findings, as an employee of the firm would.

With the name of the firm having been disclosed within the article, this report is easily fact-checked, and should be easy to either verify or de-bunk, by simply knowing the specific firm that allegedly conducted the audit.

It is not the same thing as a report which sticks only to unnamed sources for the purpose of making fact-checking difficult; if not impossible.

Speculation on your part. You have zero evidence the individual was part of the Berkeley group. And round and round we go.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Speculation on your part. You have zero evidence the individual was part of the Berkeley group. And round and round we go.

The point is, because the Berkeley Research Group was identified as the auditor, it makes the report easy to fact-check, and de-bunk if it isn't accurate. However, the report is over a week old now, and neither the Berkeley Research Group or anyone affiliated with the 2020 Donald Trump Campaign has denied the accuracy of the Washington Post's report.

This was a very damaging, high profile report. If it wasn't accurate, the Trump Campaign would have denounced it by now .... Instead, they have not said a word about it. To the contrary, Trump has avoided questions on the matter, when directly asked to respond to it by CNN.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think it's accurate. It seems like you do that a lot, when it comes to Donald Trump. This report was very consistent with how he would handle information which didn't support his desired narrative on election fraud. The last thing that he would ever do under such circumstances is make that information public.

... round and round we go, indeed.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

The point is, because the Berkeley Research Group was identified as the auditor, it makes the report easy to fact-check, and de-bunk if it isn't accurate. However, the report is over a week old now, and neither the Berkeley Research Group or anyone affiliated with the 2020 Donald Trump Campaign has denied the accuracy of the Washington Post's report.

This was a very damaging, high profile report. If it wasn't accurate, the Trump Campaign would have denounced it by now .... Instead, they have not said a word about it. To the contrary, Trump has avoided questions on the matter, when directly asked to respond to it by CNN.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think it's accurate. It seems like you do that a lot, when it comes to Donald Trump. This report was very consistent with how he would handle information which didn't support his desired narrative on election fraud. The last thing that he would ever do under such circumstances is make that information public.

... round and round we go, indeed.

I’ve been talking about anonymous sources which I don’t really put any credence into. Apparently the intentionally vague article put some more sunshine in your life.
If you remember correctly in all good conscience I couldn’t vote for either the hills or the Don. I do so enjoy that the person I could not vote for twisted more panties in a bunch than a middle school sleep over and it’s still working.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I’ve been talking about anonymous sources which I don’t really put any credence into. Apparently the intentionally vague article put some more sunshine in your life.
If you remember correctly in all good conscience I couldn’t vote for either the hills or the Don. I do so enjoy that the person I could not vote for twisted more panties in a bunch than a middle school sleep over and it’s still working.

It's not the same thing as anonymous sourcing, because the article did include the name of the auditor, which makes the information included in the report easy to fact-check, and either verify or discredit, based on the objective.

Let's face it ... we know that Donald trump is accutely aware of what the Washington Post reports, because he is always quick to refute any claim that he thinks is unfair. He regularly attacks their owner, Jeff Bezos. If this reporting wasn't 100% accurate, Trump would have spoken up by now. Instead, he hasn't said a word about it, and he has even avoided questions concerning the report.

 

[whodeycin85]

@BowlBrother85
This was a very damaging, high profile report. If it wasn't accurate, the Trump Campaign would have denounced it by now .... Instead, they have not said a word about it. To the contrary, Trump has avoided questions on the matter, when directly asked to respond to it by CNN.


By your own logic you expressed right here....the fact that Ashley Biden herself hasn't come out about her diary entries being false means that they must be accurate..correct...or are you that much of a 2 faced hypocrite.

 

[Caculator]

@BowlBrother85
This was a very damaging, high profile report. If it wasn't accurate, the Trump Campaign would have denounced it by now .... Instead, they have not said a word about it. To the contrary, Trump has avoided questions on the matter, when directly asked to respond to it by CNN.


By your own logic you expressed right here....the fact that Ashley Biden herself hasn't come out about her diary entries being false means that they must be accurate..correct...or are you that much of a 2 faced hypocrite.

The latter

 

[lawgator1]

When the current campaign gets going in earnest will Trump abandon these claims? I imagine he is being advised to do so but I doubt he can help himself.

It will be framed by him with fake distance. For example he'll be asked and his response will be "some people are saying.." or similar words. So he can say it without really saying it.

And when the camera is off he'll doubtless pat himself on the back at how clever he is.

 

[BowlBrother85]

@BowlBrother85
This was a very damaging, high profile report. If it wasn't accurate, the Trump Campaign would have denounced it by now .... Instead, they have not said a word about it. To the contrary, Trump has avoided questions on the matter, when directly asked to respond to it by CNN.


By your own logic you expressed right here....the fact that Ashley Biden herself hasn't come out about her diary entries being false means that they must be accurate..correct...or are you that much of a 2 faced hypocrite.

You are referencing a story that was advanced by Project Veritas, which the New York Post published. Major media outlets wouldn't go near that story .... including Fox News.

When it comes to having a high profile, there is a big difference between Project Veritas, The New York Post ... and ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, The New York Times and USA Today, who all covered the report which was initially published in The Washington Post concerning the 2020 Trump Presidential Campaign commissioning The Berkeley Research Group to audit the 2020 Presidential General Election for fraud ... but then kept their conclusions a secret when they didn't support their desired narrative.

You are drawing a false equivalency. You often do this.

 

[MarcoVol]

Former Arizona AG sat on records refuting election fraud

 

[VolinMichigan]

Hey guys, just checking in again. It’s been 2 and a half years. Have we found the fraud yet?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Former Arizona AG sat on records refuting election fraud

Was just about to post links on this ... An incredible story.

Kari Lake has leaned heavily on this guy's "evidence" to build her case that the outcomes of statewide elections in Arizona shouldn't be trusted. The American Bar Association should take a look at this guy's license.


Former attorney general in key state withheld evidence debunking 2020 election fraud

Mark Brnovich Hid Findings Refuting Election Fraud Claims in Arizona – Rolling Stone

 

[jmacvols1]

Democrats...real insurrectionists....election deniers

 

[WBO]

Every time the election deniers go to court they lose, except for one ruling on a procedural matter. They make allegations in the complaints but you have to present evidence and there isn't any. OAN "reports" ain't evidence.

It's why Repub judges in Arizona are starting to sanction the attorneys and the plaintiffs. See Finchem. He's my favorite because he started yelling at his supporters for not giving him enough money.