In States Where People 'Engineered' Voter Problems, There Were Problems

Your Vote at Risk. Actually, he's the dean of election experts in America, John Fund. I won't even ask how are you, I'll just say hi.

I got some sleep the last couple days. Uh-huh.

Is that a good sign? Yeah, I suppose sleep is good. That is correct. I don't get much sleep, but I'm lucky. I'm I'm almost like Donald Trump on the sleep issue. I don't need a lot anyway. John, I have no idea what you will say, truly, but I simply respect you so much. I want to get your take. If you had to bet your right leg, do you believe— would you vote that— would you bet that this was an honest result or not?

Depends on the state. Most of the country voted very smoothly. Most of the country voted well. Most of the country didn't have major problems. But where there were people who wanted there to be problems, who planned to have problems, who engineered problems, there were problems.

Were there enough problems to have determined the election?

Maybe, but can you prove them before December 8th when states certify the votes and name their electors to the Electoral College? Highly doubtful, right?

So I'm not asking what, what will work. I'm just asking, uh, and it's really an open question. I, I believe— I did not know last week, but the more I have read, the more I have become suspicious of the results in states like Pennsylvania and, and Michigan and so on, Wisconsin. So that's— was there enough, were there enough shenanigans to alter the result?

Well, Dennis, I'm gonna have to give you a different answer, which is this: In March and April, when we had COVID, the left immediately sprang into action and said, aha, we now have the excuse, we have the COVID to immediately and quickly and dramatically change the way America votes because everyone is going to be scared of COVID We can tell them, don't go to the polls. We're all going to switch immediately to an all-mail election. In state after state. This was planned chaos. They knew that our election system isn't equipped to go to that transition that quickly. So if you go from 20% of the vote cast early or absentee to 60 or 65, you're going to have massive problems. You're going to have a tsunami of ballots. And in that tsunami of ballots, you're not going to have the same safeguards and oversight and verification that you would normally have. And that is where the thesis of my first book 20 years ago began, when I said what we really have to fear in this country is a situation of planned chaos in our elections where you can't tell where the incompetence ends and the fraud begins.

Why some states and not others?

Some states weren't close. I mean, do you really want to invest resources in making sure that New Mexico goes to all-mail elections? No, we know how New Mexico is going to vote. Do you really want to be making sure how North Dakota is going to vote? No, we know how North Dakota is going to vote. They targeted and picked the states where they changed the election rules.

But— oh, so there wasn't mass mail-in in New Mexico or North Dakota?

Well, there was greater, uh, but the point is the shift, the dramatic shift in Pennsylvania was from 4% of the vote cast early or absentee to over 50%. Pennsylvania, of course, was the critical state of any state in the country. Uh, in California, it didn't so much matter. They've already gone to basically all mail-in voting. But in states where it really counted, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. You can— I can even— you can predict the states as much as I can. Nevada. The shift was dramatic and it overloaded the system, and it meant a lot of things could happen behind the curtain that we'll never know about.

So is it fair to say— I'll ask— I'll put, put, uh, put on your analyst hat now. Is it fair to say that about half this country, for the first time in American history, does not believe a presidential election was fair?