It’s becoming increasingly clear that Joe Biden will occupy the White House in the new year. That doesn’t mean that observers like David Catron of the American Spectator will stop raising questions about Biden’s election victory.
During the weeks following November 3rd, innumerable election experts and statistical analysts have pored over the voting data upon which former Vice President Joe Biden’s purported campaign victory ostensibly stands. A growing body of evidence ranging from straightforward ballot audits to complex quantitative analyses suggests that the tabulation of the votes was characterized by enough chicanery to alter the outcome of the election. Consequently, a consensus has gradually developed among the auditors of publicly available information released by the states, and it contradicts the narrative promulgated by the Democrats and the media. The more data experts see, the less convinced they are that Biden won.
Among the analysts who question the legitimacy of Biden’s victory is Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a cybersecurity expert whose technical expertise was touted by the New York Times last September and who has been described as a hero in the Washington Monthly. It’s unlikely that either publication will be singing his praises for his work pursuant to the recent election. His damning analysis of the electronic manipulation of votes that occurred in the early hours of November 4th appears in a sworn affidavit included with C.J. Pearson v. Kemp, a lawsuit filed by Attorney Sidney Powell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. His nine-page affidavit (Exhibit 26) describes how it is possible to manipulate votes, where this occurred, and sums up his findings. …
… Dr. Keshavarz-Nia is by no means the only expert to reach the conclusion that widespread vote-tampering occurred. This examination of the election results, for example, uses quantitative analysis to identify some very odd anomalies in the 2020 vote patterns.
