MIT PHD scientist, Dr. Shiva, analyzes the digital fingerprints left behind by alleged election fraud in the likely stolen Michigan election. Statistical analysis can show patterns left behind by vote manipulation in an election. These are the fingerprints of fraud. Dr. Shiva goes through the data analysis for four counties in Michigan. Similar issues have been reported in multiple battleground states that flipped the day after the election when mail-in ballots were counted.
When computers cheat, they inevitably leave evidence behind
Shared from Andrea Widburg, American Thinker
You should learn three main things from this post: (1) the Supreme Court can consider statistical evidence of fraud and can order a new election. (2) Most of the computers used for voting in America have a built-in mechanism that allows votes to be weighted in favor of a candidate. (3) If someone does tell a computer to mess with the election outcome, the computer’s processes will inevitably create unnatural data trails that prove human intervention in vote counts — and that’s what happened in three Michigan counties.
The Supreme Court
Alexander Macris found Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York, 435 F.Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), a case with close parallels to 2020’s election. After President Ford lost in 1976, Republican voters sued New York, alleging that systematic fraud deprived them of their voting rights. The district court allowed the suit and stated the following legal test: (1) plaintiffs had to prove specific acts of misconduct that (2) involved “willful or knowing” ballot fraud (3) by state officials or private persons acting jointly with state officials that (4) changed the outcome of the election.
The court held that the plaintiffs could introduce expert opinions and statistical analyses showing that voting patterns markedly deviated from the predictable uniformity to be found in random samples from elections counts that were honest. If the plaintiffs, won, said the court, they could get an order requiring a new presidential election. Any other outcome would fail to protect election integrity (especially in presidential elections) that is “essential to a free and democratic society.”
Donohue plaintiffs were unable to meet the legal test because they did not introduce sufficient evidence showing that fraud changed the outcome. However, there’s an unending flow of evidence in this year’s election, both witness testimony and data evidence, showing fraud sufficient to change the election’s outcome in the contested states.
Vote-counting machine irregularities
Some of the statistical data Trump needs can be found in the video at the bottom of this post. In it, Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., a multi-credentialed MIT grad whom leftists despise, works with Bennie Smith, a software engineer, election commissioner, and data analyst, and Phil Evans, an inventor, engineer, and data analyst, to show massive voting machine fraud in three Michigan counties.– Read the full story by Andrea Widburg at American Thinker
If You Enjoyed this Post PLEASE SHARE IT!
Let us know with a comment below, subscribe to our blog, visit our sponsors and bookmark and use our Amazon.com link the next time you buy anything on Amazon!
We may earn a small fee from the links on this site, at NO additional cost to you.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
I wonder if you were to examine the voting machine software for voting machines in these republican precincts, would you find that there is a discrepancy between what that software contained with the software at predominantly democrat precincts?
I’d like to see the results of a hand recount in those counties compared to the digital tally.