US Rejected Ukrainian Election For Stuff We’re Seeing in Michigan and Pennsylvania

You gotta love the internet. Sure, BigTech stifles search and speech, but things have a way of never going away. In 2004 US and international observers rejected an Election in Ukraine. Why? Absentee Ballot fraud. Ejecting election observers. Mail Ballot fraud. Altering electronic voting results.

Related: Lawsuit Asks Judge to Void Michigan Election and Order a New One

Check this out.

The OSCE/ODIHR’s report said that the election did not meet “a considerable number” of international standards, and that, as in the first round, state executive authorities and the Central Election Commission displayed a lack of will to conduct a genuinely democratic election process.

Here are a few examples that sound eerily familiar [edited and reformatted].

• [M]assive electoral fraud was committed through the illegal use of absentee voter certificates.
• [P]eople were caught with their pockets stuffed with blank absentee ballots to vote at multiple polling stations.
• Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling stations.
• In some locations, “[T]urnout rate hit nearly 96 percent —  in Donetsk, 98 percent of the votes went to hometown candidate Prime Minister Yanukovych.
• In the second round of the election, the number of voters who supposedly cast ballots at home using mobile ballot boxes was double that of the first round.
• [S]upporters gained illegal access to the Central Election Commission’s computer system and illegally altered vote tabulation data.

This massive ballot-box stuffing, fake turnout figures, and other forms of fraud and abuse allowed the authorities to create a victory for their candidate that almost certainly would not have been possible in a free and fair election.

It has been noted elsewhere (on the internet) that if UN or international observers were present in these suspect polling places, they would invalidate the election for failing to meet “a considerable number” of international standards,” and “a lack of will to conduct a genuinely democratic election process.” 

Perhaps the courts will find that is the case, perhaps not. But what we are seeing and hearing is, in fact, grounds for rejecting the results and calling for a new election in these counties or states.

If, by chance, they cannot pull it off in time, well, we have a constitutional remedy for picking a president, but it does not currently favor Joe Biden.