New information coming out about the 2020 National Election has many questioning whether there is a statute of limitations on election fraud, and whether there is real proof of election fraud. While most of the GOP and even many Democrats now admit the possibility that the election was stolen from President Trump, many seem to suggest that we should just put it in the past and move forward toward 2024. Is this what we usually do when evidence has been presented? Is there evidence of election fraud, and if so, is there a statute of limitations on election fraud? Let’s take a look.
In any other situation where a theft has taken place and evidence is found months later, the perpetrator is not allowed to keep the stolen merchandise. We don’t say, “Oh well, he got away with it. Let’s work on securing the rest of our property.” If evidence is found against the thief before the statute of limitations is up on thievery, then the thief is not only prosecuted, but is usually ordered to return the stolen property, or make reparations.
Election Fraud Evidence in the Georgia Election
Before we explore the subject of statute of limitations on a crime, we should first show the evidence that the crime was committed. While there are still many who claim that the 2020 election was “fair and honest,” more and more proof to the contrary is coming out daily.
A report from Georgia Star News shares that Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger’s office received over $5.5M from a group closely tied to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook for the state’s presidential election. As you will see later in this article, other states received similar “donations” from the Zuckerberg group.
According to the Georgia Star article, the Center for Election Innovation and Research donated the money to the Georgia Secretary Of State and his staff in order for them to “carry out a number of tasks.” Exactly what those tasks were is not immediately clear.
In response to questions from the Georgia Star News on the subject, Raffensperger’s spokesperson, Walter Jones stated, “Any grant or funding source, as allowed by Georgia law, has enabled this and local elections offices to combat disinformation similar to recent articles published by this outlet that undermine the confidence of Georgia voters.”
This statement seemed to imply that the money was used to refute articles published by the media that shared election information, including Georgia Star News. The Georgia Star News, however, was not in publication before the 2020 election.
Despite the Secretary of State’s claims that there was no voter fraud in Georgia in 2020, the state swiftly passed new voting laws mere months after the election took place, and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp was eager to sign off on that law. While there has been much controversy over whether or not the new GA voter law is discriminatory, with even Biden making claims to that effect, a simple read of the law’s full text would clear up any miscommunications. The New York Times has made the full text of Georgia’s voting law available for the public to read.
In a video from One America News, Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion tells of a new Georgia Election Fraud report showing that the number of fraudulent votes already exceeds the margin of victory in the state, even though the current count for the Look Ahead America report in Georgia has not yet been completed. An article from the Gateway Pundit goes on to share that Georgia already has “at least 355,000 invalid ballots,” with another 12,000 expected to be added by yesterday’s end. Once again, readers are encouraged to read the full report for themselves to clear up any miscommunications.
Election Fraud Evidence in the Arizona Election
Georgia is not at all the only state in which evidence of election fraud is still being presented. Although President Trump has never had his day in court to show proof to the American people that the election was stolen from him, many Republican supporters are using other venues to bring the evidence from various states to the public eye. Arizona is another such state. In fact, Maricopa County, Arizona also received millions of dollars from a Zuckerberg group just before the election, and a hand count audit and investigation into the tabulation machines is being performed in the state this week, and Democrats have responded by filing a suit to stop the investigation.
Just as they did in Georgia, reports of election fraud began circling the state of Arizona almost as soon as the sun rose over the horizon on November 4. By December, reports began to show that the state was facing lawsuits from these election fraud claims. According to a post from Real Clear Politics, data expert Bobby Piton stated that as many as 300,000 fake people voted in Arizona’s election, which would make it the “biggest fraud in history” at the time. Of course, the many reports of voter fraud in Arizona were refuted by those who gained from the election results.
Accusations of voter fraud in Arizona became so heated that the Senate Republicans subpoenaed election equipment and materials to use as proof of their election fraud claims. As the Tennessee Star reports, however, Maricopa County officials refused to comply with that subpoena, leading many to ask, “If there was no evidence of election fraud, what are they hiding?” Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 to go to court rather than turn over the evidence that had been requested and subpoenaed by the state Legislature. By February, a judge had determined that the subpoenas were enforceable, according to the Washington Examiner.
Now, months after the election, those ballots and machines are finally being reviewed and investigated, unless the Democrats get their way in their latest lawsuit to stop the investigation. According to one report, the first shipment of machines was delivered on Wednesday for the audit, but only after the Senate agreed not to cast any legal or financial liability on the county in connection to the results. That’s correct; the county finally agreed to relinquish the evidence that was requested months ago, but only after gaining the promise of legal protection if the evidence shows voter fraud.
This article goes on to state that the audit will have no impact on the results of the 2020 election. It also admits, “Biden was the first Democratic presidential nominee to win Maricopa County in 72 years.” Senate President Karen Fann signed a document that would release the county from any financial lawsuits or claims that might arise from the Senate getting control of those machines. The public is encouraged to read that document, once again, to clear up any miscommunications that might have been received.
If it is true that the evidence found will have no impact on the election, and that the county cannot be held financially liable, one has to ask what other avenue of liability would there be? Are we saying that there is no punishment for election fraud, even if it is proven? Is there an unknown statute of limitations that is put in place as soon as the illegitimate politician takes office? Live feed of the audit was set to be shown at AZAudit.org.
Election Fraud Evidence in the New Hampshire Election
Another state facing strong and ongoing accusations of voter fraud from the 2020 election is New Hampshire. Although a post from Lead Stories claims that a hand recount of votes in Windham, NH is not proof that there was fraud in the election, the writer admits, “the results changed markedly in the recount,” but adds that, “it’s unclear why.” She goes on to speculate that either the original report or the recount could have contained errors, and even suggested that both reports could be wrong.
Dana Ford is refuting an article in the Gateway Pundit which claims that the hand recount in Windham found that Dominion machines shorted every Republican in the town. In that article, Jim Hoft states, “A recent hand recount in the Rockingham District 7 NH House Race in Windham, New Hampshire, found that the Dominion-owned voting machines shorted EVERY REPUBLICAN by roughly 300 votes.” Ford does clarify “the mere discrepancy is not evidence of fraud, which involves intent.”
The recount of the Windham ballots was voted in unanimously by the New Hampshire Senate in February, according to a report from Human Events. The 24-0 vote insisted that the state perform an audit of the state representative races and requested an investigation into what happened on November 3rd.
Several candidates from those races, both Republican and Democrat, have joined in the request for answers. At least 300 votes were found to be miscounted, and the state’s governor signed a law to have the election investigated. Once again, according to Human Events, the results of this investigation will not affect the 2020 election, and neither the government nor Granitegrok, the citizen group pushing for an investigation, is seeking to change the election results. The Sentinel Source sees this as a good opportunity to test the machines.
While Georgia was able to amend its voter laws to make it more difficult for those who may wish to cheat, newly proposed New Hampshire voting laws were struck down in Superior Court, according to NHPR. The state is blocked from enforcing any of the penalties included in this law as long as a lawsuit is ongoing. The decision to strike down the law is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The entire law, known as SB3, can be read by those who wish to research deeper.
Many other accusations have been made concerning election fraud, including one from Jovan Pulitzer saying that he was offered $10M to keep silent about his evidence. There are other states joining in these voter fraud investigations, including Wisconsin, where a complaint was just filed today. For those who wish to research further into other recent election fraud cases, they can all can be examined state by state on a Heritage Foundation website, simply by entering the state into the site’s search bar.
So, IS There a Statute of Limitations on Election Fraud?
Of course, as is the case in almost any fraud case, the short answer to this question would be. “Yes,” but let’s look deeper into this one. For many, if evidence is presented to show that there was fraud in the election, it is more than mere fraud. Some Republicans go so far as to call it treason. If that is the case, there is no statute of limitations on treason, a crime that is punishable by death.
Maybe for you, it doesn’t go quite so deep. Perhaps you see enough evidence being presented to convince you that there was, indeed, election fraud, but you wouldn’t go so far as to call it treason. If that is the case, then we have to look at the statute of limitation specifically for election fraud and voting fraud. That’s where things can get a bit complicated.
According to The American Spectator, each state makes its own rules for bringing action against those who have committed fraud against the government under federalism. Federal law decides the statute of limitations for crimes and actions against the federal government, and states each make their own decisions about statute of limitations for crimes and actions against the state. Anyone proven to have been guilty of election fraud in the 2020 election could possibly be found guilty by both.
For simple election fraud cases under federal code, there is at least a 5 year statute of limitations. When it comes to state fraud cases, in most states the limitations are quite generous simply because the fraudster goes to such great lengths to hide his or her actions that may require more time to gather the needed evidence. As the American Spectator points out, the Democrats and media outlets who are demanding that President Trump shows the evidence of voter fraud immediately either aren’t aware of this fact or are simply ignoring it.
The “Discovery Rule” allows an accuser adequate time in order to find the surreptitiously hidden evidence that so often goes with fraud. Despite the media bias and Liberal cries, that evidence cannot possibly be found and presented within a couple of weeks or months. Many Republican supporters simply don’t buy the current belief that there is no way to fix it if election fraud is proven. Some even suggest a Writ of Quo Warranto could be enacted. Day by day more and more evidence is coming forth about the 2020 Presidential Election, and our laws support the accuser having adequate time to present his case; a case, which up until now, has never seen its day in court.
