Too implausible for fiction

Bestselling novelist Larry Correia, who knows fiction when he sees it, asked a number of professional auditors about the plausibility of the statistical evidence for the media-projected results of the U.S. presidential election:

I noticed yesterday that I was having lots of strangers show up to scream at me whenever I posted any information about election fraud, but they were all low information types just barfing up “fact checks” which was basically whatever the news had just told them, but none of them had the basic knowledge of how fraud works to even sorta discuss any of the actual data. So I got curious and posted the following on facebook:

One quick question, only answer if you have worked in auditing/stats/fraud/investigations/or other data analysis type fields. In your entire career, have you ever seen a case that threw up this many flags that DID NOT turn out to be fraud?

Again, flags are not proof. They are merely anomalies which would cause an auditor to check. Nor am I claiming this is a scientific poll (though I’d bet I’m still more accurate than Nate Silver!). There is of course a sampling bias as I know many of these people in meat space (and their resumes on this topic are killer) but it was also open to the public so anyone could comment and it got shared a hundred times.

The consensus thus far is overwhelming. No. Not only no but hell no.

Certified Fraud Examiner since 1992 here. I have never seen such an oversupply of red flags. 3 or 4 might be explicable or coincidence, but dozens all pointing the same way? This would be too implausible for fiction, let alone a case study.

No. In fact I would say that in about 34 years of this work it is my professional opinion that at this level it is mathematically more likely that our sun blinks out of existence as a result of every particle in it spontaneously “blinking” into another state than it is that fraud did not take place on the order of millions of votes.

Epstein didn’t kill himself. Biden didn’t win. And Q says it had to be this way.

How do you ‘show’ the public the truth?

How do you ‘safeguard’ US elections post-POTUS?

How do you ‘remove’ foreign interference and corruption and install US-owned voter ID law(s) and other safeguards? 

It had to be this way.

Sometimes you must walk through the darkness before you see the light. 


This tends to confirm my hypothesis that President Trump was so confident of his reelection that he was willing to appear to put his second term at risk in order to secure free and fair elections in 2024 and beyond. After all, what is the point of winning a second term if the Swamp is simply going to undo everything you have accomplished. This would also explain the need to wait for the second term to drain the Swamp; the only way to systematically excise the full extent of the fraud was to expose it to everyone.