Surveillance video recorded overnight after the election shows a white van making deliveries to a major Michigan ballot counting center: TCF Center in Detroit.
The video was obtained by The Gateway Pundit.
The deliveries of boxes reportedly occur hours after the deadline for ballots to be collected.
During that same time period, President Trump’s large lead in Michigan was overtaken by a surge in ballots counted for Joe Biden.
Also shown on the video is a black car that is greeted twice, near the time of the van deliveries.
Watch the video at the link below:
https://rumble.com/vdo997-suspicious-vehicle-seen-escorting-late-night-biden-ballot-van.html
Read the story in Gateway Pundit by clicking the link below:
Investigative journalism is always based upon questions, and this video certainly contains those, like the mysterious out-of-state automobile and it’s apparent connection with those delivery vans, and if not connected, then why did it appear each time inside the facility within quick concurrence of the vans pulling in. And what were the quizzical “handoffs” by the same, unknown young man who came out the facility to rendeavous with the car each time just before the vans pulled in, and where we see the passing of communications between him and the unknown drive and something(s) handed over between them.
Yes, it never ends when mysteries like thes are simply ignored, passed over, by those who don’t wish such questions to come to light,
Is it possible that delivery vans can be intercepted en route, and boxes switched? Of course it is. Is it possible that counterfit ballots were manufactured from unknown sources and used for this switch over? Of course, it is. That was why Joven Pulizer’s testimony before the Georgia legislative special committee explained how easy it is to answer this question by allowing examination of the ballots for foreign artifacts. Even though that legislative committee ruled to have this done, the administrative arm of that government thwarted their will. Thus, yes, it never ends when questions are thwarted instead of directly addressed.
While it is true that investigative journalism is based on asking questions, it should at least make an attempt to address the questions being raised. At a minimum, it should provide whatever relevant information that exists. This piece doesn’t do any of that. I provided what appears to me to be a more than reasonable explanation for the events seen on the video. That information doesn’t prove anything, of course, but leaving that out of the piece is practically a dereliction of journalistic duty.
You raised the possibility that the votes were switched on the way to the counting center. Is that possible? As I always say, if it doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it’s possible. But in this case, it overlooks the fact that the number of ballots being delivered (unless you want to claim that Mr. Thomas was in on the fraud and lied to the public about that number) was far, far insufficient to change the outcome (13,000-odd ballots were in the shipment when Biden won Michigan by 154,000). Or are you claiming that multiple vans of votes were hijacked? And why was the mysterious car needed if the van had already been hijacked? And why would the mysterious car driver make his mysterious exchange in full view of the security camera?
I assume that the person you are referring to is actually J. Hutton Pulitzer. Here is a note that I found about him: Pulitzer later became a treasure hunter, searching unsuccessfully for the Ark of the Covenant and later claiming that a sword, that was likely a fake, not only had “‘magical’ magnetic properties” but was also a sign that ancient Romans had visited North America by 200 A.D.
This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have the goods on election fraud, but it does make me pretty suspicious of his theory. And my guess is that it didn’t take very much to convince the Georgia legislative committee to go along with Mr. Pulitzer since he was singing the song that they wanted to hear.
And that’s the problem. Republicans are so eager to believe any story of election fraud that they will accept anyone who is willing to make any claim, however outrageous. So you have the Dominion – Hugo Chavez connection and the “Kraken” lawsuit with its ridiculous claim of 1-in-15,000,000,000,000 odds of Biden winning (and if you have read the lawsuit you know how bad the math is) and the claim that more people voted in Detroit than were registered. And they hide behind the seemingly innocuous argument that “just this one more thing” will be enough to settle it. Well, pardon my skepticism on that score. Georgia has conducted three recounts because, well, the first two weren’t good enough. Arizona has conducted multiple audits because the Arizona Republican Party complained that the first ones didn’t include enough ballots. Wisconsin did a recount of its two most populous counties. None of these showed any issues. But it’s never enough.
And all the time those advocating for fraud have never explained how it is that such a massive fraud could be conducted across multiple states involving tens of thousands of ballots and many poll workers and election officials (of both parties, including ardent Trump supporters) without leaving any hard evidence behind. Instead of trying to answer that question, we are directed to focus on mysterious vans doing what Michigan election officials are saying that they should be doing.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times – you can’t prove a negative. So, no, in my opinion the charges of election fraud have not been ignored. They have been investigated to a fare-thee-well. But to those who want to continue to believe in election fraud, there will always be “just one more thing”.
If you recount fraudulent ballots, it doesn’t matter how many times you count them. There is now mathematical proof of manipulation of the numbers in at least three states. There are patterns in the time series that shouldn’t be there if the numbers were generated naturally. It’s like throwing a hundred coins on the floor, and finding them nicely stacked in towers of ten coins in each. Edward Solomon Geometric Proof https://youtu.be/_hVurQ608CU
There seems to be serious issues with consistency here. There are two choices to support how Biden “fraudulently” won. The first is that the vote counting process manipulated the results. That is what this article seems to be claiming with its talk of “phantom precincts” and Euler violations. I think that I will withhold my judgment on these claims until other mathematicians weigh in. Because I seriously doubt that many readers (me, included) are really qualified to judge the accuracy of this work. This reminds me of the argument that the Georgia vote violated Benford’s Law which, of course, was also used to claim voter fraud (and I believe that this theory was also referenced in an article in this newsletter). Then I happened to see a video by a real mathematician who showed that Benford’s Law didn’t apply to the election returns (because for Benford’s Law to apply, the raw data has to encompass many orders of magnitude which election returns do not).
And remember that Georgia did a hand recount by comparing the paper ballot results with the machine results and found no issues. So that would seem to exonerate the machines. And it would also exonerate some mechanism within the overall machine vote counting process. In fact, by hand-counting the votes it would seem that it wasn’t possible for this theory to be true since the hand-counting bypassed all of the machine vote-counting. So creation of “phantom precincts” and manipulated votes wouldn’t have been possible. So this would mean that ballots were somehow fraudulently created and fed into the system. But that is not what this article claims. It seems to claim that the fraudulent ballots were simply electronically created within the vote counting system. Actually what it seems to claim is that no ballots were really created; the vote totals were simply manipulated. But then you run into the problem of the hand recount matching.
And according to the article, the “algorithm” supposedly required actual voting data to know how many votes to swap. So it would have had to dynamically calculate the number of votes needed to switch to Biden as the “real” Trump votes rolled in. That implies that the “algorithm” would have had to be running on whatever computer compiled the votes from several precincts (because the machines at the precinct level wouldn’t have had the necessary overall picture to know how many votes to switch). So where was this “algorithm” run?
Putting aside the fact that the article that claims to “prove” voter fraud is based on manipulating the results electronically, consider that the other possibility is that fraudulent ballots were created and fed into the system (see the comment “if you recount fraudulent ballots, it doesn’t matter how many times you count them” above). That would mean that the hand recount would have been satisfied. So where did the fraudulent ballots come from? If they were physical ballots wouldn’t they have caused a mismatch between the number of ballots counted and those actually received? Remember that Georgia did an audit of the mail-in votes in several counties around Atlanta and found no serious issues.
If it wasn’t fraudulent physical ballots, and it wasn’t manipulated vote counting, what was it? I honestly can’t think of another explanation.
Note that the article that has generated these comments was about a mysterious van in Detroit delivering votes at 3:30 a.m. Which, to no one’s surprise, was also taken as proof of voter fraud. So which is it? Did a mysterious van deliver fraudulent ballots in Atlanta as well. Or is this Georgia claim yet a different voter fraud mechanism? It’s just so hard to keep up.
When I saw the headline to this article, my first thought was “it just never ends”. My second thought after watching the video and reading the article was that there are likely benign explanations for what happened yet the article only gives a conspiratorial one – election fraud.
In about ten minutes of searching, I found an article that provided such a benign explanation. It included an interview with Chris Thomas, “Michigan’s longtime chief elections administrator, a nonpartisan who spent decades working under secretaries of state from both parties” who was quoted in the article as saying this about the ballots mentioned in this article: “Those were the ballots received on Election Day [from] drop boxes, from the mail and in the clerk’s office, and in the satellite offices. It happens every election.”
The article also includes this: “At one point, around 3:30 in the morning, Thomas supervised the receiving of Detroit’s final large batch of absentee ballots. They arrived in a passenger van. Thomas confirmed the numbers he’d verified over the phone: 45 trays, each tray holding roughly 300 ballots, for a total of between 13,000 and 14,000 ballots.”
Trump lost Michigan by 154,000 votes.
I tried to count the trays that were offloaded. The video was too grainy to tell for sure, but it could have been more than 45 trays. But it was only a few more. To get to 154,000 ballots would require 513 trays, and there weren’t anywhere near that many.
Is Mr. Thomas’s story true? I don’t know, but at least it should be investigated before speculative articles like this are published. What exactly is the nature of this fraud (this article doesn’t say, preferring to leave it to the reader, I suppose, to concoct some wondrous story). Were these “suspicious” ballots supposedly manufactured by some Biden-friendly group? If so, how did they circumvent the normal voting process which seeks to reconcile the number of ballots cast with the final election results? Wouldn’t a large enough number of “suspicious” ballots have triggered something in that reconciliation process? Well, it turns out that the “poll books” were out of balance in Detroit – to the tune of about 450 votes. And they were out of balance in 2016 as well, but no one made a big deal out of it.
And it’s not as if these guys were attempting to hide anything. The video clearly shows the TCF Center worker with a clipboard noting the delivery of the ballots. I can only assume that they knew that their activities were being recorded.
If there was fraud, how to explain that Trump actually did better in Detroit in 2020 than he did in 2016?
And how to explain that no judge saw fit to agree with any of the many election fraud lawsuits brought on Trump’s behalf?
There may be perfectly logical reasons that address these shortcomings in this conspiracy theory, but you certainly won’t find them in this article.
Remember Melissa Carone who claimed that a van ostensibly used to bring food to the election workers was, in her opinion, too small for such a task and was, therefore, being used to bring illegal ballots into the counting center? She later admitted that she hadn’t actually seen any ballots in that van. This article has that same tinge – let’s not investigate too much, let’s just take anything that seems out of the ordinary and immediately jump to voter fraud.
Journalists are supposed to provide context in their articles to those of us who couldn’t possibly, in this case for example, have any insight into Michigan election processes. They should at least make an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, to give the reader an idea of what the true story is. Instead of that, this article contains the line “during that same time period, President Trump’s large lead in Michigan was overtaken by a surge in ballots counted for Joe Biden” as if it was a surprise that Biden did better with mail-in voters than same-day voters (as he did all across the country, not just in Michigan). But instead of admitting that fact, this article implies that the Biden surge was due to skullduggery. Why? My inescapable conclusion is that this was done to paint a picture, to keep the election fraud story alive somehow. It’s sad, and it’s infuriating.
As I said at the beginning, it just never ends.