WorldNetDaily is still publishing misinformation about the 2020 election, as Bob Unruh demostrated in a March 28 article:
Even Democrats believe there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, according to a commentary from John R. Lott Jr., formerly the senior adviser for research and statistics at the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy and now the president of Crime Prevention Research Center.
Lott explained in his commentary at Real Clear Politics that peer-reviewed research confirms evidence of voter fraud.
He said his own peer-reviewed research to be published in Public Choice confirms evidence of "around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud. Biden only carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065."
He explained his point isn't to "contest" the election results, "but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections."
Neither Unruh nor Lott mentioned the fact that despite his study being submitted to the journal in December 2020, it still isn't considered to be officially published and revisions are ongoing -- a suggestion that the peer review process isn't going well. Another suggestion it's not going well is that other researchers have pretty much decimated Lott's work. Politiclal scientist Andrew Eggers and a colleague submitted a brief to the journal slated to publish Lott's study is based on crucial errors and selective reporting of data that, when corrected, no longer support his conclusion. Eggers went on to state that "we’re not trying to suppress academic debate or silence efforts to uncover fraud. The paper’s main evidence is based on an error, and we think giving it a stamp of scientific approval would be bad for Public Choice (let alone democracy).
Unsurprisingly, Unruh made no effort to talk to anyone refuting tyhe research, nor did he mention Lott's history of dubious research. Such biased and selective reporting is no way for WND to rebuild the credibility it has squandered over the years.