Rand Paul: Trump’s Margin of Defeat in 4 States Occurred in 4 Data Dumps Between 1:34 a.m. and 6:31 a.m.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says he is highly skeptical about the 2020 presidential election and cited what he called overnight “data dumps” in four key battleground states.
“Interesting . . . Trump margin of “defeat” in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself,” Paul wrote on Twitter.
The social media giant immediately slapped the Republican senator’s Twitter post with a warning label.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Social media is cracking down on Conservative content. Many of you have complained that you never see our content in your news feeds. There’s only one way to fight back — and that’s by subscribing to my FREE weekly newsletter. Click here.
“This claim about election fraud is disputed,” Twitter wrote.
Paul linked to a report that investigated vote patterns in the presidential race. The report showed:
- “An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31 a.m. Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42 a.m. Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
- A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34 a.m. Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50 a.m. Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump”
“In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia,” the report stated. “Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.”