SEN. LANKFORD: December 2016, a poll said 32% of Americans believed that the Russians had influenced the outcome of the election. Based on that belief, we spent millions investigating it, we had 6 congressional hearings, etc because 32% of Americans didn't trust that election.

2/ A few days ago, a poll said 46% of Americans believe there was election & voter fraud in the 2020 election. 80% of Trump supporters and 16% of Biden supporters believe there was fraud. Now, amazingly after the 2020 election, everyone is saying "lets move on and ignore this."
3/ In my state on election night, like 27 other states in the country, by that evening, we were counting votes, and all absentee ballots had been received. There was much less opportunity for fraud because all of our absentee ballots were in.
4/ Amazingly, a week after this election, some states were still telling us, they weren't sure how many ballots were left to count. That gives opportunity for fraud, questions, and problems. It's reasonable to ask if there was fraud when you mail a ballot to everyone in a state.
5/ Even if they didn't ask for a ballot. Especially, when the state did not first purge or verify those addresses & they sent thousands of ballots to people that no longer live there. That's a problem. There were at least 91,000 registered voters that are dead. That's a problem.
6/ Of 130,000 alleged incidents of voter fraud in Nevada, no one has been prosecuted yet. It's extremely important to enforce voter integrity laws. These laws must be enforced. When you lose the principle of "one person, one vote" the end result is authoritarianism.
7/ VIDEO: [Part One]
8/ VIDEO: [Part Two]
9/ VIDEO: [Part Three]
10/ VIDEO: [Part Four]

More from Kanekoa

*The Election Map*

There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud in all contested states. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.🇺🇸🦅

More from Politics

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."

We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".