2020 isn't done with us yet, it seems

Investment Watch Blog is not one that I'm personally familiar with. That notwithstanding, the reporting here seems worth further attention.

In 2017, the DHS assumed authority over US election infrastructure. Machine Identification Code micro dot technology is well-established, making identification of the particular machine that printed out a document not exactly trivial but certainly a straightforward process. The concept and technology involved with including a not-visible-to-the-unaided-eye watermark isn't a particularly novel or difficult security feature either. After a not-that-comprehensive or thoroughgoing look at DHS and election security related .gov websites, I can say that there seems to be remarkably little public discussion about including such technology into the printing of mail-in ballots. Make of that what you will.

I do wonder if Pres. Trump's seemingly unshakable confidence in the 2020 election outcome isn't due, at least in part, to his knowledge of the ballot integrity security technology in place for this election cycle. If in fact all official (that would be legal) US General Election mail-in ballots do have a MIC micro dot unique to each machine producing that ballot, and there is a watermark visible only under a particular wave length of light unique to each voting jurisdiction on every mail-in ballot, then I can only assume there exists sufficient physical evidence of election jiggery-pokery necessary to seeing somebody (and possibly a great many somebodies) into jail ... and Donald Trump continued residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for another 4 years.

Assuming that there is physical evidence that some number of ballots now being counted towards the election outcome are provably fraudulent documents, I shouldn't think the USSC will have too much difficulty ruling that any ballot not provably legally printed and postmarked prior to the close of elections on Nov 3rd be discarded as ineligible. In those instances where ballot counters have ignored the law(s) regarding separating late-arriving ballots from those posted prior to Nov 3rd, it also doesn't seem too much of a stretch for the court to rule all mail-in ballots not posted prior to Nov 3rd as tainted and unlawful.

I personally doubt anyone in DC feels any sense of urgency to cross this particular political rubicon, so I don't expect any attempt at such a ruling very much prior to a week or so before the constitutionally mandated Dec 8 deadline for states to certify elections.

I don't think it that unsupportable to conclude that Donald J Trump very much has this election in the bag already.

Chin up Kevin Baker; it may (or may not) be a simulation, but it's certainly entertaining!