Streetwise Professor

November 5, 2020

Remember, Remember, the Third of November

Filed under: Politics — cpirrong @ 2:21 pm

Or would it be the 4th?

Today, November 5th, is Guy Fawkes day. A commemoration of an attempt to overthrow England’s constitutional order by force. It was the inspiration for the ditty: “Remember, remember the Fifth of November, gunpowder, treason and plot.”

There was no gunpowder to speak of on 3 November, 2020. Plot, tantamount to treason, however, cannot be precluded.

Or maybe I should say on 4 November. When I went to bed late on the night of the 3rd, Trump was comfortably ahead, with a large fraction of the vote counted, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. When I awoke less than 6 hours later, the leads had disappeared in Michigan and Wisconsin, and narrowed dramatically in the other two.

The flips in Michigan and Wisconsin were highly irregular, to say the least. Michigan updated its results around 0400 EST by adding 128K votes–100 percent for Biden. At almost the same time, Wisconsin added similarly lopsided totals.

Indeed, “lopsided” is not the right word. Wildly improbably imbalanced is closer to the mark.

In Wisconsin, turnout is allegedly approximately 90 percent. Something that has never happened in that state, or in any other state.

What, because Joe “Calling a Lid” Biden is such an inspiring candidate?

Those are Soviet- or Nork-style turnout numbers. Not even remotely credible.

Indeed, the whole exercise appears Soviet (or Russian). Some parts of these states allegedly had near 100 percent (over 100 percent in some Milwaukee areas!), with 100 percent votes for one candidate. Hell, even Stalin would accept 99 percent.

So which is it? Are they so incompetent that they can’t commit a convincing fraud? Or was the gap so large that they had to go for the gusto and produce large numbers of votes in favor of a single candidate, and fight to defend them in the courts? Or maybe this is just an in-your-face act: yeah, we’re faking it, and we know you know we’re faking it, but you can’t do anything about it, chumps.

It’s also odd that whereas Trump overperformed relative to other states in 2016, he underperformed in these two states–which just happened to be the closest then and now. (You leverage fraud by concentrating on the states with the narrowest margins. Who cares about national election fraud in California?)

These results are facially implausible. Farcically implausible too. So what’s the recourse?

I don’t know the ins and outs of election law. Who has standing to sue? On what grounds? What are the remedies?

Recounts are pointless. Recounting fraudulent ballots just would validate a fraudulent result. The ballots would have to be challenged. How that would work, legally, I don’t know.

What I do know is that social media and the media are censoring anyone who raises these concerns, and moreover, is painting anyone who raises them as a “conspiracy theorist,” and hence to be disregarded. (Censored, actually.)

I note in passing this video which provides a very provocative explanation of the origin of “conspiracy theory” as a term in modern political discourse. In a nutshell, the Deep State, with the connivance of the media, uses these allegations to discredit those who question the government.

When thinking about these things, I’m reminded of Nirvana. The band, not the place: “Just because you’re paranoid, Don’t mean they aren’t after you.”

All of this is oh so Russian. The voting irregularities. The relentless propaganda demonizing and censoring anyone who dares question those irregularities.

And of course, the Deep State chimes in. The execrable head of the FBI, Christopher Wray, stated: “the agency has “not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.” Not the weasel’s weasel words: “historically”; “coordinated”; “national.” Straw men. These things have not been alleged, or don’t matter (we’re talking about now, not history): but Wray knows knocking down straw men will provide Democrats with an allegedly authoritative endorsement of their view “move along, nothing to see here.”

That’s pretty Russian too.

I note in passing that Wray would be fired if Trump wins.

We are in the worst scenario that I painted in my pre-election post. A close, contested outcome that will wend its way through the courts.

Regardless of the outcome, half the country will believe that the outcome is illegitimate. This will exacerbate the national divide, and move the country from a pre-revolutionary situation to a revolutionary one.

The only way in a close election to avoid such a terrible outcome is for election officials to make every endeavor to ensure that the outcome was fair, and that the process adhered to the law–and in particular, ensured that only legitimate ballots were counted, and counted correctly. Not just ensure these outcomes, but ensure that these outcomes were perceived by the voting public.

The transparently absurd results in Michigan and Wisconsin, the suspicious interruptions of the counting process in other states, and the potential for abuse with mail-in voting all mean that this definitely did not happen. Instead, we have a concatenation of curious coincidences that support a conclusion of corruption. All of the “coincidences” going one way, of course. All of the coincidences occurring in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions. Which, of course, cuts against a theory of random errors, due, say, to mere incompetence. It instead supports a theory of deliberate partisan action.

On January 20, half of America will believe an illegitimate president is being inaugurated. If Biden assumes the office, 50 percent will believe he did so as the result of fraud. If Trump does, 50 percent will believe that he used the courts to override a democratic outcome.

Meaning that there will be civil war. The only question is: how will it be waged?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. @Pat. So if the DoJ prosecutors and state justices look at the evidence presented and decide it doesn’t stand scrutiny (as has already happened at State level – 10+ cases tossed to date), you still may not accept the result? It sounds like you’ve already set up and concluded a kangaroo court in your mind. What would your argument be then? That the Dems were too clever and covered their tracks too well?

    The fact is that if there was any blockbuster, incontrovertible evidence Trump et al would have been shouting from the rooftops about it. Instead they’ve resorted to bribing officials (oof) and fishing for other “whistleblowers” with million Dollar rewards. Their case currently stands on statistics (by no means definitive, as they freely admit), Biden wasn’t Obama so why so popular (err, he isn’t Trump), a number of ballots with no down-ticket votes (unusual but not illegal in itself), and high turnout (err, Trump, and a pretty decent Dem ground-game).

    Comment by David Mercer — November 11, 2020 @ 3:33 am

  2. @50, David, what part of “I accept the rule of evidence” do you not understand?

    Your irregular “number of ballots with no down-ticket votes is apparently about 350,000 centered in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, enough to swing the election to Biden.

    Sudden appearances of 100,000 unanswered irregular votes are not “statistics.”

    And once again I recommend the video report from Patty of 100 % Fed Up. She was a poll worker in Detroit. Her story is entirely credible. It’s like that of an eyewitness to a murder, who also tells you where the gun was dropped.

    Permit me a cautionary example from the the climate business, where I have considerable and detailed experience.

    Questions arose about publication of fraudulent data involving Michael Mann (Penn State) and Phil Jones (U of East Anglia). The evidence of fakery and incompetence was and is absolutely unambiguous. There were inquiries. The several inquiries called friendly witnesses only, and white-washed the evidence.

    Everyone was exonerated, jobs were kept, approbations continued, and the cash grants continued to roll in.

    No one paid any price and the garbage results (the paleo-climate Hockey Stick and the jimmied air temperature record) are still part of the sacred text of climate change.

    So please refrain from huffy expostulations about rejecting the conclusions of investigatory bodies.

    They’re all just people. Some honest, some not. There is no deus ex iudicialis, David, even when the iudex shares your politics.

    For myself, I am the investigatory body of choice. I reserve the right to judge the work-product of judges and juries by way of independent thought. Something everyone should try.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 11, 2020 @ 10:47 am

  3. This is hilarious:

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 11:18 am

  4. @Pat: what part of “I accept the rule of evidence” do you not understand?. Err, all of it – what does this even mean? Do you accept the rule of law, as in if the legal processes at State (and Federal, if that ever happens) is exhausted with all significant evidence examined with no redress to Trump, would you then accept the result? Yes or no – no equivation.

    By way of your examples, has the 100K blip raised in court and Patty presented as a witness yet and, if so, what happened?

    From what I’m seeing case after case are being tossed as witnesses who have sworn affidavits suddenly change their tune when under oath (quel surprise), daft arguments over what constitutes hearsay etc. A nice little earner for the lawyers I’m sure, but no doubt all those who donated to the legal fund in good faith won’t be too enamoured at seeing their hard-earned spaffed away on frivolous cases.

    Give me a case, any case, which you believe has merit and which you think you’ll win.

    @diesel – hmm, not as funny as the clip of that Nevada poll worker on Fox doing the rounds, who sounds for all the world like Rudi on helium.

    Comment by David Mercer — November 11, 2020 @ 2:36 pm

  5. @3 – you are on to something there David – “but no doubt all those who donated to the legal fund in good faith won’t be too enamoured at seeing their hard-earned spaffed away on frivolous cases”

    It’s even better than that. The fine print of Trump’s legal defense fund says that 50% or more (!) of any donation can be used to retire debt ran up in Trump’s election campaign.

    various source less I beaccused of spreading fake news

    Comment by [email protected] — November 11, 2020 @ 3:12 pm

  6. @3

    Nah, seeing Outer Party members get a taste of what Big Brother (Sister?) has in store for them is always endless amusement.

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 3:54 pm

  7. Stories of fraud and other shenanigans are now flooding in.

    Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — November 11, 2020 @ 4:20 pm

  8. @libte – Kristi Noem is also in on the gig, apparently. She seems nice.

    Governor’s pitch to aid Trump appears to benefit her own campaign fund

    Comment by David Mercer — November 11, 2020 @ 4:27 pm

  9. @6

    The claims of fraud here are far, far more believable than the obsessive nonsense we heard non-stop about “Russian interference” in 2016.

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 4:29 pm

  10. @Ex – you do know stories on Parler (AKA Meinspace) and Gab don’t count?

    Comment by David Mercer — November 11, 2020 @ 4:33 pm

  11. If everything’s good here, let’s have a recount where the Republicans do the counting and the Democrats aren’t allowed to observe. Shouldn’t a problem, right?

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 5:10 pm

  12. @10, sure because Republicans don’t cheat in elections.


    Comment by [email protected] — November 11, 2020 @ 5:34 pm

  13. @11

    So you’re good with it, then?

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 6:36 pm

  14. @12, I trust the overwhelming majority of Republicans to do the right thing, so yes, I would be in agreement. People like the Republican city commissioner in Philadelphia, Al Schmidt, who is now receiving death threats because he said publicly that the vote in Philly was fair.

    Comment by [email protected] — November 11, 2020 @ 7:11 pm

  15. @13

    Well, that’s great then, I look forward to all other liberals expressing their support.

    Comment by Dieselboom! — November 11, 2020 @ 7:29 pm

  16. @14 – in what race were there no Republican observers at all? (alledgedly)

    Comment by [email protected] — November 11, 2020 @ 7:45 pm

  17. @3 (103, actually), David, it’s you who’s equivocating, with your, “legal processes … exhausted [and] all significant evidence examined with no redress to Trump.

    Are your processes honest, David?

    All legal processes were exhausted in the cases of Michael Mann and Phil Jones, too, with no redress to the complainants. Those legal processes were dishonest.

    You continually appeal to authority, David, as though authority speaks truth ex cathedra. It does not.

    My rule of evidence is the obvious standard. Appraise the evidence dispassionately and completely.

    If that’s done and the conclusion is that I’m wrong, so be it. I’ll accept that. There’s your requested monovocation.

    None of the other blather above deals with the fact that, no matter the election outcome, Joe Biden did in fact accept a gigantic bribe from China and that the Democratic Party agenda is the deliberate and conscious ruination of the Republic.

    All the argumentation about election results falls into insignificance in the face of those facts.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 11, 2020 @ 8:52 pm

  18. @David,

    Emerson says it better than I can: ‘What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary.’

    Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — November 12, 2020 @ 12:02 am

  19. @Pat. So the law is an ass, and the court of public opinion (or at least, those who are thinking the right way) should prevail. Okey dokey.

    And you offered up no court case for me to watch, despite this alleged growing mountain of evidence. On which note whatever did happen to “Patty”? Has she been picked up by one of the legal teams? I did what a few minutes of that vid and yup, you guessed it, I had one of the will to live moments. What struck me was more were the comments on the video – so many people taking it at face value, no questioning of who she was/ her credentials, actual evidence presented etc. So much for critical thought eh?

    Comment by David Mercer — November 12, 2020 @ 2:55 am

  20. @19, David, are you dyslexic?

    Where, in anything that I wrote, can one rationally infer that I hold the law to be an ass?

    I wrote of honest and dishonest processes. One determines the worthiness of the judicial result by independent knowledge of the facts and evidence.

    Is the case for independent judgment by application of an objective standard difficult for you to understand?

    So, you couldn’t bring yourself to watch Patty’s video testimony. How, then, could you suppose an ability to comment validly about it?

    Of what possible relevance to the credibility of Patty’s testimony is the quality of the comments below her video?

    Really, David, sanity does not survive letting oneself be dragged about by fashion.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 12, 2020 @ 5:23 pm

  21. Hi Craig, I think my response to David got captured and sunk. It had a link or two, which probably set off alarm bells.

    Can you please recover it? Thanks very much.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 12, 2020 @ 11:41 pm

  22. @16
    are you banned from Google?(c)

    OK, i’ll perform a public service and give you a start in your quest for truth.

    you’re welcome.

    Comment by Tatyana — November 13, 2020 @ 7:52 am

  23. An interview on Fox News with Melissa Caron. She was a contract worker for Dominion, maker of the ballot counting machines, providing IT support to the ballot center in Detroit.

    She has provided a sworn affidavit, which reports thousands of votes altered in Detroit in favor of Joe Biden.

    The Fox interview includes a lawyer from the Great Lakes Justice Center. Ms. Caron is one of his witnesses for a motion filed before the Court to require a recount.

    A longer interview with Ms. Caron is here:

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 13, 2020 @ 10:45 am

  24. Let’s notice, by the way, that Ms. Caron’s sworn affidavit completely verifies the testimony of Patty, the ballot checker video-linked in post #2 (102) above, who similarly described extensive fraud and abuse in Detroit.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 13, 2020 @ 10:58 am

  25. @ Pat – the Great Lakes JC case has just been tossed too. Not surprised given Ms. Caron’s testimony, which to be honest was incredibly weak. I’m genuinely trying to keep an open mind here but I’m really not seeing anything of note at all

    Comment by David Mercer — November 13, 2020 @ 2:03 pm

  26. @24 David, Melissa Carone’s testimony was very compelling. She was eyewitness to criminal activity.

    She reported it to her Dominion supervisor, who advised her to ignore it. She has provided a sworn affidavit subject to perjury.

    Her report also completely corroborates the eyewitness testimony of Patty above.

    I’ve read Wayne Cty Judge Timothy Kenny’s ruling. Have you?

    His dismissal rests on the absence of physical evidence to substantiate the eyewitness testimony of the complainants.

    But, of course, there can be no physical evidence absent a physical investigation. A physical investigation that is now aborted by the judge’s ruling.

    It’s Catch 22 all around.

    The judge’s ruling, to be honest was incredibly weak.

    Comment by Pat Frank — November 13, 2020 @ 4:50 pm

  27. @20 — thank-you, Craig. Your considerate attention is very much appreciated.


    Comment by Pat Frank — November 13, 2020 @ 7:33 pm

  28. @SWP…The post shows that there have been 127 comments. But I can only see 27. None of the comments earlier than November 11 appear. Is there some place I could find them.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — November 20, 2020 @ 6:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress