Podcast – Who won the 2020 presidential election?

You can divide the USA down the middle by asking one question, “Who won the 2020 presidential election?” Depending on your answer, you are demonized at worst, considered duped by the media at best or somewhere in between. There are a lot of memes and “Facebook facts” abounding about the election but few back up their stance with a PhD level analysis of the facts. One who did was Dr. Peter Navarro. I’ll be talking about him and his very famous report series in this episode. 

Information related to this podcast:

Podcast Transcript

You can divide the USA down the middle by asking one question, “Who won the election?” Depending on your answer, you are demonized at worst, considered duped by the media at best or somewhere in between.

There are a lot of memes and “Facebook facts” abounding about the election but few back up their stance with a PhD level analysis of the facts. One who did was Dr. Peter Navarro. I’ll be talking about him and his very famous report series, right after this.

{sponsor: My eBook – “Racism Reimagined: How Critical Race Theory Imperils the American Workplace” can be downloaded here.}

Dr. Peter Navarro received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and is a professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the University of California, Irvine. You might have seen him on CNBC, Fox Business, the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the CBS News, including 60 Minutes. (He’s a big deal.) He presently works in the Whitehouse as the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (OTMP), an office established by President Trump to defend and serve American workers and domestic manufacturers.

As a private citizen, Dr. Peter Navarro did his homework on the election. So much so, he wrote 3 volumes of reports based on what he observed. Agree or disagree with his findings, one must admit that he did his homework and that his evidence is compelling.  

His first report, “The Immaculate Deception,” assessed the fairness and integrity of the 2020 Presidential Election by identifying and assessing six key dimensions of alleged election irregularities. These irregularities included: outright fraud, ballot mishandling, a wide range of process fouls, multiple violations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, voting machine irregularities, and statistical anomalies. Here are some quotes from that report.

Quote #1

In a voter fraud context, bribery refers to the corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action, such as voter registration or voting for a preferred candidate.12 At least in Nevada, there is a slam dunk case that such bribery occurred. What is so stunning about the Nevada case is the brazen disregard for our federal bribery laws. In the Silver State, in an effort orchestrated by the Biden campaign, Native Americans appear to have traded their votes not for pieces of silver but rather for Visa gift cards, jewelry, and other “swag.”13 According to the Epoch Times, such vote buying schemes also may have occurred in eight other states, including Arizona and Wisconsin.

Quote #2

Arguably the most flagrant example of possible fake ballot manufacturing on behalf of Joe Biden may have occurred at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. The possible perpetrators were caught in flagrante delicto on surveillance video. In one version of this story, poll watchers and observers as well as the media were asked to leave in the middle of the night after a suspicious water leak. Once the room was cleared, several election officials pulled out large boxes of ballots from underneath a draped table. They then proceeded to tabulate a quantity of fake manufactured ballots estimated to be in the range of tens of thousands. 17 Note that a large surge in Biden votes following the tabulation of these ballots can be clearly observed after these votes were processed.18 Despite what appears to be damning evidence of a possible crime, a spate of stories appeared across the anti-Trump media diaspora dismissing any concerns. According to these whitewash stories, these were regular and authorized ballot boxes, observers in the media were not asked to leave but simply left on their own.

Quote #3

Indefinitely confined voters are those voters unable to vote in person because of old age or some disability. There are two types of possible abuses associated with such indefinitely confined voters. The first kind of abuse involves exploiting the elderly or the infirm by effectively hijacking their identities and votes. For example, in Georgia, the family of an elderly man in a nursing home facility discovered that a mail-in ballot had been requested and submitted under his voter registration identity, yet it was done without his consent.

 In a similar situation in Pennsylvania, two parents and their daughter who has Downs Syndrome went to vote in person and discovered that a mail-in ballot had both been requested and submitted for the daughter without her consent. The second kind of indefinitely confined voter abuse is far more consequential, at least in the state of Wisconsin. The key allegation here in several court filings is that “bad-faith voters” registering as “indefinitely confined” intentionally broke “Wisconsin election law to circumvent election integrity photo identification requirements.” In a nutshell, they were able to vote without showing a voter identification photo and therefore underwent a far less rigorous I.D. check than would otherwise have been conducted.

This abuse happened, according to one press account, after “clerks in Dane and Milwaukee counties offered illegal advice that encouraged individuals to use indefinite confinement as a way to ignore the state’s photo I.D. requirement.” The Trump side has called this correctly an open invitation to fraud; and stories and pictures abound of Wisconsin voters who registered as indefinitely confined but were seen also attending weddings, riding their bikes, going on vacation, and otherwise be anything but confined.


Fake ballot manufacturing.

Exploiting the elderly by hijacking their identities and stealing their votes

All of that was documented in volume 1 of Dr. Peter Navarro’s report series – “The Immaculate Deception.”

He followed that up with volume 2 in his report series – “The Art of the Steal.” Here’s just one quote from that report.

The practical result of the Democrat Party’s two-pronged Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy was to flood the six key battleground states with enough illegal absentee and mail-in ballots to turn a decisive Trump victory into a narrow alleged Biden “victory.” Key political operatives assisting the Democrat Party included Wall Street oligarch George Soros, Silicon Valley oligarch and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Marc Elias, former Hillary Clinton Campaign General Counsel and one of the alleged architects and financial conduits for Fusion GPS and the Russia Hoax designed to topple a duly-elected President.

Soros money helped fund efforts to change election laws and rules through instruments such as referenda. Soros and his network of organizations such as the political action committee “Secretary of State Project” also helped to elect puppet Secretaries of State in Michigan (Jocelyn Benson) and Pennsylvania (Kathy Boockvar) who would play instrumental roles in bending or breaking election rules and thereby advancing the Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy. Zuckerberg money – nearly half a billion dollars – helped engineer what was effectively a hostile Democrat Party “public-private partnership” takeover of what should otherwise be a nonpartisan election process in key Democrat strongholds such as Wayne County, Michigan and Dane County, Wisconsin.

Useful idiots for the Democrat Party included Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp and Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who entered into a Consent Decree that dramatically INCREASED the number of absentee and mail-in ballots while dramatically DECREASING the rejection rate of such ballots. Republican state legislators who voted for the bills that would help the Democrats advance its Grand Strategy likewise were unwitting dupes.

Dr. Navarro’s report series concluded with volume 3 entitled – “Yes, President Trump Won: The Case, Evidence, & Statistical Receipts.” In that report, he lays out a LOT of statistics in respect to the number of illegal votes in each battleground state.

When I read through those reports and considered the source, it was easy to think that the information offered is from a life long republican and now a heartened Trump supporter defending the President with a cult-like loyalty. However, I was wrong to even consider that because Dr. Peter Navarro used to be a Democrat with a deep respect and admiration for Hillary Clinton. In fact, he feuded with Republicans often and unsuccessfully ran for office multiple times. Interesting.

When Dr. Peter Navarro released his report, the criticism he received was not directed at his analysis per se. Instead, the media attacked him from violating “The Hatch Act.” To explain what that is, I will quote Marketwatch.

The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in political work while performing their official duties. The agency charged with enforcing the act said that Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office for Trade and Manufacturing Policy, used his position to influence the 2020 presidential election through his statements in television interviews and on social media.

“His comments were directed at undermining Mr. Biden’s presidential candidacy and persuading voters not to support him in the 2020 election,” the Office of Special Counsel report stated.

White House lawyers have asserted Navarro did not violate the Hatch Act because factual or policy statements do not constitute advocacy for or against a candidate, the report stated. They argued, for example, that Navarro’s statement about Biden “kowtowing to the Chinese” was acceptable for him to make in his official capacity.

When you go against the mainstream media narrative and leftist ideology (in general), you will be called all kinds of names and cancelled out of polite society. It is amazes me that only after Dr. Peter Navarro was associated with President Trump that he became an idiot in the eyes of the left. Prior to that, he was regularly seen in mainstream media and widely respected. As I said earlier in the podcast, Dr. Peter Novarro was regularly featured on CNBC, Fox Business, the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the CBS News, including 60 Minutes. It sorts of reminds me of how the once revered and respected neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was vilified when he ran as a Republican and later served in President Trump’s administration. But, I digress.

I searched and found a video where Dr. Peter Navarro defended his reporting. I would share it with you now but, YouTube took it down.

Follow me on Social Media: