Here's how I explain away election 'anomalies,' and you're just expected to believe me
By Rachel Alexander
As evidence of election fraud and other election wrongdoing continues to rise, with the leftists in government and their comrades in the mainstream media continuing to gaslight anyone who dares question the "anomalies," 99% of which disadvantage Republicans, let's pretend to be one of them and make up legitimate sounding excuses for election crimes. Everyone is just supposed to believe the excuses, even when proof of them is withheld.
If I was in charge of Maricopa County Elections — which actually isn't that much of a stretch, I used to be their attorney — as well as a former Maricopa County prosecutor so I am aware of how the criminal mind thinks, here is exactly how I would steal elections for the GOP.
First of all, I'd make sure only electronic tabulating equipment that has a reputation for being hackable within five minutes is used. That way I don't even have to get my hands dirty; we have tech geniuses on our side who can pull it off and I can feign innocence. You know, one of those "useful idiots." When the public becomes suspicious, due to the Law of Large Numbers being violated as the votes unexpectedly switch in the middle of the night to heavily favor Republicans, I'll just make up excuses like saying the machines are unable to connect to the internet.
The key here is not to allow anyone to actually inspect the machines and other equipment to verify this. I'll fight tooth and nail to stop that from happening, stating that it would reveal confidential logins. Obviously there are ways around that problem, but don't let them debate the issue that far; the key is to just provide a plausible sounding reason and not allow them to trip you up on the details.
I'd be very sloppy when it comes to tracking early ballots, giving confusing and conflicting directions to the teams tracking them at the last minute, and when issues arise, tell the team (verbally, not in writing so it can't be tracked later) to suspend some of the chain-of-custody procedures due to some made-up reason. That way our guys on the inside — we'd need to pressure them behind the scenes, since Republicans seem to dislike cheating — can easily throw out Democrat ballots.
For early ballot signature verification, I'd do the reverse of what the Democrats do. Since I believe they turn in massive amounts of ballots with unmatching signatures, instead of pressuring our signature reviewers to go quickly in order to approve almost all of them, I'd instruct them to do the opposite. I'd require a super heightened level of accuracy, and then tweak some other things behind the scenes. For example, for the second level of signature reviewers, I'd subtly require them to start curing questionable signatures from the reddest areas of the county first, and adjust their workloads so they never even get to the blue areas.
On Election Day, when someone sabotages the equipment to favor Republicans, say by "accidentally" counting every ballot submitted twice, I'd react as slowly and cluelessly as possible. I'd deliberately do things to let the problem continue as long as possible, like spending a few hours focusing on a red herring instead. And I'd find some voters who were issued a second ballot due to making a mistake, and claim that's what had really happened.
Next, when people started submitting public records requests, I would think of every reason under the sun to deny them so they had as little information as possible. It's not very hard, there's lots of perfectly plausible sounding reasons, and the more of a stretch, I'll just have our attorney sign off on them to intimidate people and sound more credible.
The easiest reason for denying them is "no responsive records." That way, I don't have to provide a reason; it's sort of the equivalent in public records law to "irreconcilable differences" in order to get out of a marriage without any reason. Throw in a few other reasons responding to other requests to sound more legit, like stating that the documents are only available in a certain format that you know the person requesting them cannot obtain. So if it's someone in a different state, tell them that they are only available for in-person inspection. If you can sense the person isn't wealthy, quote them a huge cost to print them out.
I would conduct numerous "audits" and "recounts" that barely even scratch the surface; just a few ballots, not enough to reveal much. Then I'd constantly refer back to them as proof I was actually concerned about election fraud. The key is never to allow anyone objective to look at all the ballots, ballot images, signatures, etc.; just continue to say it's against the law because it would reveal confidential voter information. There are ways around it, like having agreed-upon experts view the confidential data, but don't ever admit this.
If anyone began to suspect what I was up to, I would label them a conspiracy theorist and start comparing them to the Unabomber. If anyone got too loud attacking me, I'd investigate their background and try to find something to discredit them, and instruct my people to constantly bash them over social media about it, no matter how much of a stretch.
Now, since the courts are mostly dominated by the left, they're mainly unusable for my purposes. But I might be able to forum shop; if I file a lawsuit, say for defamation since my detractors are accusing me of election fraud, I could file it where I am fairly confident it will be assigned to a conservative judge who isn't scared (pretty much non-existent, but if they're out there I might eventually find them). At a minimum, it will give my detractors some bad press for a while.
So that's it, that's how I will run the most safe and secure elections ever in MaRICOpa County. Please vote for me to save our democracy.
Rachel Alexander and her brother Andrew are co-Editors of Intellectual Conservative. She has been published in the American Spectator, Townhall.com, Fox News, NewsMax, Accuracy in Media, The Americano, ParcBench, Enter Stage Right and other publications.