Let’s begin by looking at some undisputed swing state data. Take Georgia, to start. In 2012, Barack Obama won 1,773,827 votes in Georgia. We are now told Biden won 2,473,633 Georgia votes, besting the first black president by a stunning 699,806 votes.
In other words, we’re asked to believe that Biden outperformed his former boss by 39.45 percent in Georgia, though Biden was soundly defeated in the 2008 Democratic primary by Obama, and that was when Obama’s sole political credentials were that of a Chicago community organizer and Illinois state senator, and before Biden’s obvious cognitive decline. Trump garnered 2,461,854 Georgia votes, and thus would have handily defeated Biden’s former boss.
Now let’s look at Nevada. It presents a similarly incredible picture. Whereas Obama in 2012 won 531,373 votes from Nevadans, Biden, we are led to believe, won 703,486 such votes, besting his former boss by 172,113 votes—improving on Obama’s performance by 32.39 percent. Again, Trump, who gathered 669,890 Nevada votes, would have soundly defeated a candidate turning in an Obama-level performance.
Arizona is altogether ridiculous. In 2012, Obama won 1,025,232 votes in Arizona. Yet Biden, we are asked to believe, got 1,672,143 votes from Arizonans, a whopping 63.10 percent improvement over Obama’s performance. Once again, Trump, who won 1,661,686 votes from Arizonans, would have handily defeated a candidate turning in an Obama-level performance.
All six swing states still in dispute—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, in addition to Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona—were won by Trump as of midnight on Election Day, and all experienced a massive “blue-shift” in the early morning hours of Nov. 4.
The idea behind “ballot adjudication” apparently is this: If a paper ballot is ambiguous—say a voter voted for both Trump and Biden (an “over-vote”) or the circles are filled out incompletely—the software assigns the ambiguous ballot to “adjudication” so that, in theory, an election official or team of such officials can examine the paper ballot and “adjudicate” it, i.e., decide who the voter intended to vote for and input that election official’s determination into the vote count.
In the video, the official first feeds into a scanner a series of paper ballots. The Dominion software then records in one or more “batches” the scanned ballots. In this demonstration, all 16 scanned ballots are put “into adjudication” by Dominion software, even though nothing is wrong with any of the ballots. There is no “over-voting” (e.g., darkening the circle for both Trump and Biden) or incomplete circles, but somehow all 16 ballots are assigned for adjudication.
The election official then demonstrates how she can “adjudicate” any one of the 16 ballots and change the vote from Trump to Biden or any way she pleases.
This demonstration of Dominion’s adjudication function is shocking and could explain Biden’s otherwise inexplicable performance relative to Obama in the six swing states Biden somehow won after Election Day ended.
As a battle-tested commercial trial lawyer, my ears are trained to pick up misleading (even if technically accurate) testimony. I’m willing to bet that Dominion offers a “digital” adjudication function whereby ambiguities in a paper ballot are “adjudicated” by a computer viewing digital images of scanned paper ballots, and not by human election officials looking at the actual papers ballots.
But that doesn’t mean that Antrim County didn’t have a “non-digital” adjudication function whereby the Dominion software flags a ballot for human adjudication. Indeed, Poulos made a big deal about the fact that election clerks, or committees of them, would perform the adjudication, not the Dominion software. And in that regard, he’s being fair and correct. If some corrupt election officials changed votes upon “adjudication,” that’s not wrongdoing by Dominion.
So the real question that remains is this: Was the (non-digital) adjudication function used—by corrupt clerks—to change votes? Here, I’m willing to bet that the Dominion software has a “sensitivity” setting that determines how tiny an error on a paper ballot must be for the computer to assign it to “adjudication” (so that that ballot can then be “adjudicated” by one or more election officials). In typical paper ballots, the voter’s choices are registered by the voter coloring in an oval. Obviously, no voter is perfect on the microscopic level in coloring in the entire oval’s area.
So, the question becomes, were the sensitivity levels of the Dominion software for “adjudication flagging” set—possibly by corrupt election officials or perhaps by Dominion personnel—to flag an enormous percentage of ballots for adjudication (including truly unambiguous ballots), thus paving the way for corrupt election officials to change the votes using the adjudication function?
That’s why it’s crucial that the Dominion machines be impounded now under the order of President Donald Trump. Only a forensic examination of the machines will reveal the fraud.
The fraudulent use of Dominion’s adjudication function could explain how Trump went from winning all six of the disputed swing states at midnight on Election Day to miraculously losing all six in the wee hours of the following morning.
Millions of votes could easily have been changed through adjudication, and this would explain how Biden shattered all previous records and bested his former boss, to whom he lost in the 2008 primary, while “campaigning” from his basement in a state of serious cognitive decline.
In other words, Dominion supplied the means for rampant fraud—through its adjudication function and the automatic assignment of unambiguous ballots to adjudication—but an election official who doesn’t work for Dominion actually committed the fraud.
Mr. President: Impound the Dominion machines. Stop the steal!
