No announcement yet.

Release the Kraken

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 550,000 voters in Wisconsin are well over 100 years old, but the amazing part about this story is, that they all registered to vote on the same day in 1918. I would like to know if they voted in person or mailed it in from their casket.

    Elections Expert Reveals Over 550,000 Registered Voters In Wisconsin Have a Registration Date of 1/1/1918 – 115,252 of Them VOTED in 2020 (VIDEO)

    By Julian Conradson
    Published January 21, 2022 at 7:45am

    On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Assembly held another election integrity hearing to present evidence of voter fraud and irregularities that have been found in their investigation of the rigged 2020 election.

    And just like last month’s election hearing, they dropped some serious bombshells.

    Yesterday’s hearing built on those findings and presented more questions for the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has failed to answer previous questions on the 2020 election.

    They did however respond to the reported 119,283 active voters who have been registered for over 100 years, but their weak response just didn’t cut it.

    Wisconsin Assembly Attorney Jeff O’Donnell, who is an expert analyst on the election integrity team, called out the official explanation that was given, saying “it does not hold water,” before dropping some more of his team’s jaw-dropping findings of corruption in the 2020 election.

    According to O’Donnell, they found an astronomical 569,277 registered voters had an application date of 1/1/1918, which accounts for roughly one out of every fourteen voters in the state’s database.

    Oh, and wait, there’s more. One out of every five of those “phantom voters” apparently cast a ballot in 2020 – a whopping 115,252 of them to be exact.


    I wonder how many checked the box for Biden… I’d say it’s somewhere between 100% and 100%,

    Keep in mind, Trump was recorded as having lost Wisconsin by just a hair over 20,000 votes.

    The voters with the same registration date from over 100 years ago alone are 5.5 times Biden’s slim margin of victory.

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg in Wisconsin…



    • Election Investigator Moves To Imprison Democrat Mayor! Lock them up with the rest of their voter base.

      By Mark Sidney

      Former state Supreme Court justice and current Wisconsin Elections Investigator Michael Gableman has filed a suit to toss the mayors of Green Bay and Madison in jail because they have refused his demands to give depositions into the 2020 election. Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich gave the keys to the arena where the votes were counted along with secret internet access to Democratic operative Michael Spitzer Rubenstein.

      Then a group known as “Wisconsin HOT” discovered that a clerk in Racine worked with a former Facebook executive in order to track who was voting in real-time. That former Facebook exec is a man by the name of Michael Spitzer Rubenstein. If Democrats know who hasn’t voted they can manufacture a vote in that person’s name.

      Rubenstein asked to get into ‘WisVote’ per an email obtained by Wisconsin HOT:

      Information in this email was received from the City of Racine, Wisconsin in a record request. A formal complaint was filed against Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich in November for his “mishandling” of the election.

      Gableman has now filed a lawsuit in conservative Waukesha, Wisconsin that would send the mayors of Green Bay and Madison to jail until after they sit for a deposition to Gableman. Just what are they trying to hide?

      FOX11 Online reported:

      Former state Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman filed a lawsuit in Waukesha County Circuit Court looking to have Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich and Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway put in jail or sit for depositions.

      Gableman is leading the Republican-ordered investigation into the election. He has said the goal isn’t to overturn election results, but to see if election laws were followed and need to be changed.

      Judge Ralph Ramirez on Friday told Gableman’s attorney to file a brief on what his party would like to see the court do and what they believe the court has the authority to do. The brief must be filed by February 21st, with the mayor’s attorneys filing responses by March 21st.

      Jeffrey Mandell, Genrich’s attorney, asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed and a motions hearing be scheduled for Genrich’s belief that Gableman should be sanctioned.

      Mandell says Gableman made false statements about the mayor in front of the legislature and those statements should be corrected.


      • Pima County whistleblower explains how Arizona was stolen.

        Rep. Finchem read the evidence out loud.

        The IP address that this email was sent from has been identified as a computer in Tucson, Arizona.
        Finchem: On November 10th of 2020, we received an email that was actually included in some of the testimony and evidence from the November 30th hearing, last year in Maricopa County. It’s important for me to read the email in its entirety because that is what sets the stage for what is happening over the last 10 months, the investigation that we have engaged in, private sourcing, a few legislators, and pulling public records and records we could get access to. This email is, as I said, dated November 10th, and it is addressed to the criminal division at the U.S. Department of Justice.

        This is anonymous reporting and I do not want to be included in this investigation. Thank you.

        Please be advised the Pima County Recorder, located at 240 N. Stone Avenue in Tucson, Arizona, 85701 in Pima County, Arizona, and the Democrat Party added fraud votes. In the initial count of the vote by mail (VBM) totals released at 8 pm on November 3, 2020, There are approximately 35,000 fraud votes added to each Democrat candidates’ vote totals. Candidates impacted include County, State, and Federal Election candidates. Through the utilization of the automated ballot count machines in Pima County Elections, My understanding is that 35,000 was embedded into each Democrat candidates’ total votes. Below are the meeting notes.

        In a meeting I was invited to by the Democrat party in Pima County, Arizona on September 10, 2020, no phones or recording devices were allowed. A presentation was given including detailed plans to embed 35,000 votes in a spread configured distribution to each Democrat candidate’s vote totals. When I asked, “How in the world would 35,000 votes be kept hidden, or from being discovered?” It was stated that spread distribution will be embedded across the total registered vote range and will not exceed the registered voter count. And the 35,000 was determined allowable for Pima county based on our county registered voter count. It was also stated total voter turnout versus total registered voters determined how many votes we can embed. The embedding will also adjust based on voter turnout. Because the embedded votes are distributed sporadically, all embedded votes will not be found if audited because embeds are in groups of approximately 1,000. This is so the County Recorder can declare an oversight issue or error, as a group of 1,000 is a normal and acceptable error. Maricopa County’s embed totals will be substantially larger than Pima, due to embeds being calculated based on the total number of registered voters. When I asked, “Has this ever been tested, and how do we know it works?” the response was, yes, this has been tested and has shown significant success in Arizona judicial retention elections, since 2014. Even undetectable in post audits because no candidate will spend the kind of funds needed to audit and contact voters to verify votes and the full potential of the total registered voters, which is more than 500,000 registered voters. This year our Secretary of State has removed precinct level detail from election night releases, so candidates can’t see precinct over-votes. This is what I have from this meeting. Just thought I’d report this. Not sure if you can do anything since I was unable to have a recording device at this meeting. Thank You.

        One additional piece of information about this, Mr. Chairman, is that we were able to identify the IP address where the email came from. It is a computer in Tucson. However, that’s as far as we could go.


        • AUDIT MICHIGAN: Jacky Eubanks Canvassing Efforts Raise Serious Questions – “We’re Looking At An 18% To 20% Irregularity And Anomaly Rate” (VIDEO)

          Spread the love

          (Jordan Conradson) A candidate for Michigan State Representative is leading canvassing efforts and fighting for a full forensic audit of the 2020 election in Michigan.

          SourceThe Gateway Pundit

          by Jordan Conradson, September 29th, 2021

          Jacky Eubanks is running for Michigan’s 32nd House seat and she is dedicated to fixing elections in Michigan before it is too late.

          This is despite the fact that Michigan state police are being weaponized by Attorney General Dana Nessel to target people who are looking for the truth.

          Canvassing of the Arizona election in Maricopa County, led by Liz Harris revealed hundreds of thousands of lost votes and ghost voters.

          Jacky Eubank’s canvassing efforts in Macomb County are finding similar results and Republican officials are fighting against a full forensic audit in Michigan.

          The Gateway Pundit correspondent Jordan Conradson spoke to Eubanks last week for an update.
          Conradson: I know you’ve been leading grassroots election integrity efforts throughout the state. Can you tell me about your canvassing efforts?

          Eubanks: Yes. So, it all started with, after the election we thought, not only did funny business and fraud happen in Wayne County. Which obviously everybody knows that the city of Detroit is notoriously corrupt and ballot box stuffing happened and there’s apparently 9000 affidavits that were signed as witnesses to the fraud that took place on election day and the day after in Wayne County. But nobody really took a look at Macomb because Macomb went for Trump, in 2020. But what I thought was interesting was that Macomb has been the bellwether County for the state of Michigan and has been one, I believe one of nine counties, who have determined who would win the presidency in every presidential election, like ever. So when Trump won Macomb but didn’t win the presidency, I thought that was weird and strange because that was the first time that’s ever happened, and also that his margin of victory went down. So we decided to take a random sample of absentee voters from my hometown of Chesterfield Michigan, and just go knock on their doors and verify that the name and address on the ballot matches up with what happened in real life. And what we found was really startling. We found between 18% and 20%, it fluctuates because we’re still gathering data, but we’re looking at an 18% to 20% irregularity and anomaly rate based on the canvassing we’ve been doing this summer.

          Conradson: Right, so are you finding issues like ghosts votes and lost votes like we found out here in Arizona?

          Eubanks: So we’ve definitely been finding what we call phantom voters or ghost votes. We have not looked at Lost voters. I didn’t even think to do that until the Liz Harris report was released and now there’s a lot of interest in doing that. We may adjust, but mostly our, our MO was just going to houses, and people that we know there’s an absentee ballot that was counted in their name. And then we just go to that addresses and try to see if we can talk to the voter, whose name is on that ballot. And what we’ve been finding is that there’s a series of different kinds of anomalies. Number one is, if we go to that address, and we find out that there is nobody by that name who lives at that address, and the current homeowner will even say I don’t know who you’re talking about I’ve lived here for two years, 10 years, 20 years, and they don’t know who the person that we’re asking for is. And then another irregularity we have, is when we try to go to an address to verify that name and the address is not valid. For example, we had one ballot assigned to a dentist/a real estate office, we had another ballot that, well many ballots have been assigned to a gigantic apartment complex with many buildings and many numbers within each building and the addresses do not specify a building number or apartment number, so there’s no way to track down to see if this person is real. Other irregularities include, we, we talked to the voter and we say did you, we ask did you vote, and they said no I did not vote in the November 2020 election, and then we say well records show you voted absentee, and then they get upset because they realize they’ve been defrauded and they sign an affidavit.

          The third and most mysterious kind that we found is people who swear they voted in person at the polling precinct on election day, And even recall putting their ballot into the tabulator and recall shredding their absentee ballot if it was mailed to them. Yet, There’s still an absentee ballot that’s been counted in their name, according to official records.

          Now keep in mind all the records we’ve gotten we’re FOIA’d through the township, through the county, and through the state, but all this is online. We would literally need to do a full forensic audit, in order to verify these anomalies, because we’re just checking them against online records, and we don’t know if there’s actually paper ballots and signatures to match the online records.

          Conradson: Yes. Have you brought this to any elected officials?

          Eubanks: I have been in constant talks with the county clerk. And his response was at first, “Just bring me more affidavits and I will consider doing an audit for Macomb County, you know, I just need hard proof.” Then when I brought him affidavits he said “Great, I’m turning it over to the state police.” Well, the state police are headed by Dana Nestle, our attorney general who has openly stated that she will come after anybody who questions the results of the 2020 election. So then it got turned over to the FBI and as far as I know, the affidavits I turned it to him are being investigated by the FBI, which I don’t, I’m not necessarily a fan of that outcome.

          Conradson: Right. Um, so another thing I was wondering, are you facing any pushback for your canvassing efforts from Dana Nessel or the Democrats in Michigan?

          Eubanks: Shockingly, not the Democrats it’s the Republicans who are trying to shut this down. So I had no idea that so many people did not want this canvassing effort to go through, or they don’t want an audit at all. And I’m very quickly realizing, the more attention I’m getting for this canvassing effort, the more volunteers who get involved, the more events I go to where I present my findings, the more Republican politicians currently in office try to stop it.

          Conradson: Why do you think that is do you think they’re scared, and they might have lost?

          Eubanks: So, this is where things become speculative, and I like to stick with the facts, but if I were to guess. Well, their narrative is that we just want unity and we just want to focus on 2022 and, and turning Michigan red, and just winning back. Congress, and I can’t help but think that if the Democrats got away with rigging the election in 2020, how can we ever be sure that they won’t rig 2022, 2024 and every election here after. So either the current politicians don’t believe there was any fraud, which I’ve presented enough evidence to show that there was, and plenty of other people have shown that there was through their findings. So either they, they don’t want to see it, they don’t want to look at it, they don’t want to believe it or they know something. And if the audit went through something about them could come out that implicates them in a crime. Those are the only two things, I can figure, but I don’t know. Yeah, that’s what we’re dealing with.

          Conradson: Yes 100% getting to the bottom of 2020 is the top priority before 2022 Who do we need to pressure in Michigan to get a full forensic audit going?

          Eubanks: At this point, I would, I think our best hope is the state legislature because we do have a Republican majority in both the Michigan House and Michigan Senate. I spoke to a Michigan Senator last night. He said he has been in constant talks with the Arizona State Senate, and that they have told him to hold off until the Arizona report comes out, which I believe is this Friday. So, basically, he said, there is a group of Republicans in the state legislature working towards getting an audit but they’re waiting for the final results to come out from Arizona before they proceed, I would still say people should call their Michigan representatives and tell them that they need to do this.

          Republicans in these fraud-ridden states like Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona have dropped the ball and refused to stand for their constituents.

          Republican Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Chucri admitted that issues like ballot harvesting, dead voters, and faulty machines affected these states, as well as Arizona.

          Chucri and Republicans across the country continue to fight against audits, leaving their constituents wondering who they really work for.

          Now that the Arizona audit report has been publicized to show massive amounts of fraud, it is time for the Michigan Legislators to act on their promises.

          Call your legislator if you live in Michigan and would like to see your vote counted.

          Support Jacky and the Michigan canvassing efforts, HERE!


          • Ramthun Resolution Referred to Rules Committee

            Wendi Strauch Mahoney
            January 26, 2022

            On Tuesday, Representative Timothy Ramthun (R-WI) introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 120 (AJR120). The resolution has been referred to the Committee on Rules and seeks to reclaim the state’s 10 electoral votes from the 2020 election. Ramthun asserts there is evidence that the votes were “certified under fraudulent purposes.”

            Ramthun has been under fire for his efforts to expose what happened in the 2020 election. In January, Republican Speaker Robin Vos stripped Ramthun of his only staffer “for spreading misinformation about the 2020 election and fellow Republicans.”

            The resolution effectively walks through much of the evidence, from sworn testimony and emails, resulting from several ongoing lawsuits, starting with the Center for Tech and Civic Life’s (CTCL) “illegal use of over 500 voter dropboxes” in the state. Former Justice Michael Gableman says five key Wisconsin cities took upwards of 9 million dollars from the Zuckerberg Foundation.

            Whereas, the audit report of the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau identified 44,272 voters who did not provide proper voter identification in the 2020 general election, revealed the mass increase of indefinitely confined voters from 4,505 in 2019 to 169,901 in 2020, revealed that 28.7 percent of all municipal clerks across all 72 counties used illegal drop boxes, and made 30 recommendations for the Elections Commission to rectify their actions;

            Resolution 120/Wisconsin
            Biden took Wisconsin by a slim margin of approximately 20,000 votes. The alleged improper absentee ballots alone would have given Trump a win.

            Additional assertions in AJR120 include but are not limited to the following:
            • The Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) knowingly and incorrectly gave improper guidance on indefinite confinement rules, “suggesting all voters could declare themselves indefinitely confined because of the pandemic.”
            • Voter trends representing population growth that is a “statistical impossibility.”
            • Dirty voter rolls, revealed by grassroots canvassing, indicating bo
            • Whereas, at its December 8, 2021, public hearing, the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections heard testimony from expert analyst Jeff O'Donnell, who found a multitude of irregularities when he analyzed data from the Wisconsin voter rolls, including that 93.7 percent of active voters participated in the 2020 general election, 205,355 voter registration applications were dated November 3, 2020, 957,977 individuals registered as new voters in 2020, 45,665 voters who registered did not have matching Division of Motor Vehicle records, 22 percent of active voters registered in the 6 months leading up to November, 3, 2020, 31,872 of those voters who registered in that 6-month period are now listed as inactive, and 42,000 voters who voted in the November 3, 2020, election are now listed as inactivegus absentee ballots—23 percent of which allegedly have questionable addresses.

            Dirty Voter Rolls/Wisconsin
            • A failure to protect data with the deletion of logs and files on the Dominion Voting Machines by the WEC.
            • Evidence of city commissioners accepting election bribes from biased outside organizations.

            State Representative Jim Steineke, the majority leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, says Ramthun’s resolution is “just plain unconstitutional.” Steineke took to Twitter to state that “disinformation spreads quickly.” He also stated that Ramthun had “zero support,” and there was “no vote on it.”

            Steineke may not be entirely correct in his statements, however. An online blog may provide insight into the way Ramthun presented his resolution. He used Assembly Rule 43: Privileged Resolutions to advance it. Discussions on several social media platforms seem to confirm its use. The resolution is now in Speaker Vos’ hands. And, furthermore, at a minimum, Wisconsin voters now know exactly where their representatives stand.

            “Rep. Ramthun bravely called for a point of order today, during an open session. He did this by using Assembly Rule 43 and asking was his resolution privileged and able to be passed on to the Rules Committee through an open session? Yes, the resolution was privileged. Then they were able to do a vote within the session that was currently taking place. And it was all “Yes”, a unanimous vote to move the legislation to the Rules Committee. So now the resolution will land at the Rules Committee. It’s in the hands of Speaker Vos, a Republican. So Speaker Vos and the rest of the representatives have ten days to answer back on whether he’s going to push it to the floor for a vote.”

            In his first pass at a resolution to reclaim electoral votes in November, Ramthun declared his commitment to accountability:

            “I have formally called upon the entire legislature to answer the concerns the majority of Wisconsin citizens have regarding election integrity,” Ramthun said in a statement. “I have also offered every office the opportunity to see all the provided evidence used to make the claim upon request, as well as proposed legislative solutions to ensure future elections are not manipulated….”

            “It is this time in history where we can correct the course of our state and our nation, to hold those who would manipulate our sacred right to vote accountable,” Ranthum said. “It falls upon us to take a stand and set an example for the remaining states to follow. Accountability demands that if you do not follow the law, and seek to fraudulently affect election results, you will not succeed.”

            Assembly Republicans hired Gableman last summer to investigate the 2020 election. Allegedly, Gableman has secured key evidence that would bolster Ramthun’s resolution to reclaim the electors. Most recently, it was reported, a lawyer for the Assembly seeks to “jail the mayors of Madison and Green Bay if they don’t sit for depositions soon.” However, Gableman says he does not plan to incarcerate the city officials.

            The mayors have yet to comply with the subpoenas. And in the case of the Green Bay mayor, a letter from his attorney to Judge Ramirez asserts that “the Petition (for the subpoenas) is not only lacking in legal merit and built upon a gross distortion of the relevant facts.”

            On Jan. 21, Judge Ramirez told Gableman’s lawyer he needed more facts if he was going to enforce the subpoenas. “Instead,” writes Chris Rickert for the Wisconsin State Journal, “He asked the parties to submit briefs on the court’s authority to issue the writs, the correct procedure to follow, and the factual basis for the writs. A hearing to consider those arguments was scheduled for Apr. 22.”


            • New study finds that Wisconsin is the place to retire and grow old...very, very old.

              Shock Results Unveiled In Wisconsin Election Integrity Hearing

              Jan 27, 2022

              The Wisconsin state Assembly held a hearing last week on its ongoing investigation of the 2020 election. Joe Biden supposedly “won” Wisconsin by 20,682 votes. The results uncovered by the Wisconsin investigation show that this is impossible, unless a person willfully decides to believe in unicorns and other fairytales.

              If Wisconsin’s results were on the up-and-up, teams of scientists should be headed to the state right now to explore the extraordinarily good health of elderly Wisconsinites. Indeed, if Wisconsin’s 2020 election result is accurate, then the state has more than 100,000 active voters who are over the age of 124.

              Before we get to the astonishing number of 124-year-olds in Wisconsin, here are some of the other findings that were released at Wednesday’s hearing:

              There were 2,800 voter records where the voter’s name did not match the last four digits of their social security numbers. These voters were not who they said they were, when they registered to vote.

              Another 6,500 voters signed up for same-day voter registration. They signed up, cast their ballots, and then later it was determined that they were not eligible to vote in Wisconsin.

              And Wisconsin was one of the swing states that simultaneously stopped counting ballots on Election Night. Several hours later, in the dead of night, 211,000 ballots were entered into the system in Wisconsin. 80% of those ballots were cast for Joe Biden and 20% for Donald Trump. Aside from being mathematically impossible, all the counting observers had been sent home hours ago and no counting was supposed to take place during those hours.

              Perhaps the most shocking discovery of all about Wisconsin’s dirty voter rolls was there are 569,277 voters in the system who registered to vote on January 1, 1918. That was two years before women’s suffrage in America, so all of the registrants must have been men. It was also decades before the voting age was lowered to 18, so all of them had to be at least 21 years of age when they registered back in 1928. Which means that if they’re alive today, they would all be around 124 years old.

              Think about what an astonishing feat that would be! The world’s oldest living man until just last week was Saturnino Garcia. He passed away on January 18 at the age of 112. The current oldest living woman in the world is a Japanese lady named Kane Tanaka. She just turned 119 on January 3rd. If Wisconsin’s election results were totally fair and accurate, as the Wisconsin Election Commission claims to this day, then the Guinness Book of World Records needs to get up to that state and start interviewing some of those 124-year-old voters!

              You might think, “What’s the big deal? So what if there are 569,277 of these people on Wisconsin’s voter rolls? They’re all dead by now, so how is this a problem?”


              There is the fact that 115,252 of them cast ballots in the 2020 election. That’s 5.5 times more votes than Joe Biden’s 20,682-vote margin of “victory.”

              It’s also incredibly sloppy that there are 569,277 voters on the rolls in Wisconsin that first registered to vote in 1918. That represents one out of every 14 voters on the rolls in Wisconsin.

              Having that many “inactive” voters on the rolls also makes fraud incredibly easy when you have machines handling the vote counting. When you discover that you’re losing a state like Wisconsin by, say, more than 100,000 votes, the counting machine can then grab one of those “inactive” voters and insert a ballot for them into the totals.

              It’s starting to look like that is exactly what happened in Wisconsin when 115,252 voters who were born in the 19th century suddenly sprang into action on Election Night in 2020. The Wisconsin Election Commission continues to stamp its feet and declare that 2020 was the safest and most secure election ever. Okay… then please explain the incredible longevity of those 115,252 voters who cast ballots last year while at the age of 123. You can’t have it both ways, Wisconsin. Either the election was completely fraudulent and stolen in Wisconsin, or you have an astonishing number of voters who are 124 years old.


              • An estimated 2 million original ballot images from the 2020 Election were destroyed illegally in Georgia since the election. This is illegal and yet no one has been arrested or held accountable.

                Back in November, 2021, VoterGA, an election integrity group based in Georgia, reported that 74 counties in Georgia couldn’t produce their original 2020 Election ballot images. At the time we reported this President Trump asked why Georgia officials allowed this to happen since it’s clearly against the law?

                Here is Voter GA’s press release from that time.

                Press Release VoterGA 2020 Election Ballot Images Destroyed 11-09-21 1 by Jim Hoft on Scribd

                What we didn’t realize at this time was the extent of this crime. VoterGA indicates that this crime resulted in all or a material amount of 2 million original ballot images being destroyed.

                VoterGA posted a list of facts from Georgia that demand an audit.
                1. The U.S. District Court found on Oct 11th, 2020 the Dominion Voting System that was used in the November 2020 election is unverifiable to the voter and in violation of two Georgia statues
                2. There are six sworn affidavits of counterfeit mail-in ballots in Fulton Co. election results scaling into the tens of thousands
                3. State Farm Arena video shows at least four violations of Georgia election law
                4. Approximately 43,000 DeKalb Co. drop box ballots have no chain of custody forms to authenticate them
                5. Tru-Vote Geo tracking showed evidence of ballot harvesting teams driving repeatedly to drop boxes in Fulton and Dekalb
                6. All 350,000+ original in-person ballot images in Fulton are missing in violation of federal, state retention law
                7. All 393,000+ original ballot images in Cobb are missing in violation of federal, state retention law
                8. At least 17,720 certified in person recount votes have no ballot images in Fulton
                9. 18,325 voters had vacant residential addresses according to U.S. Post Office
                10. 904 voters were registered at a P.O. Box address which is illegal
                11. All or large parts of 2,000,000 original ballot images from 70+ Georgia counties are missing
                12. Failure to make mandatory check of ballot envelope signature to signature on file resulted in absentee ballot rejection rate drop from 3.47% to .34% allowing about 4,400 extra dubious ballots to be counted
                13. The U.S. District Court found Secretary of State’s office “not credible” on August 16th, 2019 [pg70]
                14. A report compiled by Matt Braynard and his team at Look Ahead America provided specific, verifiable evidence that likely illegal ballots exceed the margin of victory in the Presidential race
                15. Statistical abnormalities identified in many GA counties by former Army Intelligence Captain, Seth Keschel show that it is implausible that the election results are correct.


                • SHOCKING TESTIMONY Reveals Democrats Were Stealing Overseas and Military Ballots from Michigan, Georgia and Now Arizona Too (VIDEO)

                  Original article. As time goes on, more and more Election Fraud is revealed. This must have been really condemning because some of the evidence has been taken down.
                  By Jim Hoft
                  Published January 31, 2022 at 9:05 am

                  Last Monday the Arizona Senate reconvened. During a senate session, the discussion turned to the UOCAVA voters — the voters covered under the Uniform Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act. These are the men and women who are serving their country in the military and send in a mail-in vote from where they are stationed outside the country.

                  The act officially covers:
                  • members of the United States Uniformed Services and merchant marine;
                  • their family members; and
                  • United States citizens residing outside the United States.

                  During the hearing, Paul Harris, a Maricopa resident and veteran in corporate executive management, spoke to the committee. Harris was a manager during the audit of the Maricopa County audit of the 2020 election ballots.

                  Paul Harris was tasked with overseeing the UOCAVA ballots during the audit. He described his experience.

                  Paul Harris: The UOCAVA is the Uniform Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act ballot. That ballot is sent out to men and women who work overseas and the people who work overseas to get a chance to work in the election. This is what a ballot looks like that goes out, an 11 1/2 X 19 ballot. When I opened up a box of ballots this is what a ballot looks like that’s a UOCAVA ballot. You know what that is? It’s an 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of copy paper.

                  Paul Harris continued: “Did you all know that our ballots come back like this from our overseas people? Did any of you know thia? It is such a sham that I had people everyday at my table taking pictures of these ballots that were scanned down. It took my team three complete days to count all of the UOCAVA ballots. You know why? Because in 2016 the numbers were apparently 1,600 UOCAVA ballots that came back in the most significant election in our lifetime. In 2020 the numbers were close to 9,600 ballots that came back. And I will tell you as an eye-witness, 95%… all went towards one candidate. And in a state where a candidate won by 10,000 votes that is 8,000 new votes during an election where people were brought home because there was a pandemic… No chain of custody. There’s nothing to identify where this piece of paper came from.

                  This testimony by Paul Harris is very similar to what we witnessed in Michigan and Georgia.

                  We have reported on this extensively at The Gateway Pundit.

                  The Michigan Senate Oversight Committee held a hearing in Lansing on election fraud and irregularities in December 2020.

                  This testimony by Paul Harris is very similar to what we witnessed in Michigan and Georgia.

                  We have reported on this extensively at The Gateway Pundit.

                  The Michigan Senate Oversight Committee held a hearing in Lansing on election fraud and irregularities in December 2020.

                  One GOP elections observer on Tuesday said all of the military ballots she saw looked like “Xerox copies” of each other – none were registered Michigan voters and 100% went for Joe Biden.

                  The witness, Patty McMurray, described her experience at the TCF Center on Wednesday morning.
                  “Not one of the military ballots was a registered voter and the ballots looked like they were all exactly the same Xerox copies of the ballot – they were all for Biden across the board, there wasn’t a single Trump vote and none of the voters were registered, “witness Patty said. “They had to manually enter the names, addresses, enter birthdate of 1/1/2020 which would override the system and allow them to enter non-registered voters of which I saw several that day, throughout the day, that’s how they would override voters that were neither in the electronic poll book or in the supplemental updated poll book.”

                  Witness at #MichiganHearing says all military ballots she saw looked like “xerox copies” of each other, none were registered Michigan voters and all were for Biden (This Tweet was taken down.)

                  — Team Trump (@TeamTrump) December 1, 2020
                  The original military votes were discarded and Democrats printed up new military ballots for Joe Biden — 100% for Joe Biden!

                  So what happened to these original ballots? And how were they intercepted?

                  This was not an isolated incident.

                  The same thing occurred in Fulton County Georgia. Nearly all the votes went to Joe Biden, which is statistically impossible:

                  In December 2020 a poll watcher announced that 93% of the military ballots in Georgia went for Biden:

                  This is the link to the video which has been taken down:

                  The Democrats loathe the US military. They only want power.

                  Any Republican worth their salt should be speaking out on this and demanding an investigation.


                  • Forensic Analyst Erich Speckin Confirms 25000 Counterfeit Ballots in Arizona



                    • The Halderman Report

                      Original article. If you are interested in the security of our elections, you have probably heard of the Halderman Report. You can learn what that is all about in this article. For a quick overview, watch the video and enjoy the Left’s schizophrenia.
                      BYPATRICK BYRNE OCTOBER 17, 2021,
                      Curling v. Raffensperger and the Halderman MacGuffin

                      Federal Judge Amy Totenberg with sister Nina Totenberg (of NPR) and their Stradivarius
                      Dr. Alex Halderman is a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering and Director of the Center for Computer Security and Society at the University of Michigan. He is, in short, a Professor of Dolphin-Speech, with focus on hacking. Halderman is no fan of Donald Trump, and from his public statements I would surmise that his politics are normal academic Lefty, but intellectually honest normal academic Lefty. Professor Halderman becomes a key part of our story now, because Professor Halderman was commissioned to perform a professional analysis of Dominion Voting cybersecurity and cyber-integrity, or lack thereof. His 25,000 word monograph on the subject may turn out to be the MacGuffin of this pivotal moment in American history.

                      Here is how that came to be:
                      1. In August 2017 Georgia politicians (Democrat and Republican) filed a federal lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger on the grounds that use of Direct Electronic Voting systems (aka “DREs” aka “voting machines”) violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The case is Curling v. Raffensperger.
                      2. That case moved through the Courts until in March 2020, the federal district judge then deciding that they were correct and that Georgia had to get rid of its machines.
                      3. In that process a Michigan professor of cybersecurity, Alex Halderman, who has been leading the study of voting machines for over a decade, was commissioned by the court to inspect a new Dominion machine. He wrote a 25,000 word report on the subject. For reasons that will be explained below that report has yet to see the light of day with the public, but I think it safe to say that the findings he expresses match the excerpts of Congressional testimony shown in the video below.
                      4. Weeks before the November 2020 election, Federal Judge Amy Totenberg wrote a decision that indicated profound mistrust of the voting systems and a desire to get rid of them, but found it was too late to unplug them for the November 2020 election then only weeks away. Judge Totenberg sealed every scrap of information she could about the case, including Professor Halderman’s monograph.
                      5. Whatever is in that report is so important that on September 21, 2021 (just over three weeks ago) Halderman moved the court for permission to break the protective order on his findings, that he might get them to DHS-CISA. He makes clear in his submission to the court that the vulnerabilities he found could easily be used by domestic or foreign actors to rig an election on these machines, and that there are 16 states at risk, and that it is a matter of national security.
                        • Halderman states “these are not theoretical problems but rather specific flaws in [Dominion] software” and his “prepared to demonstrate proof-of-concept malware that can … steal votes.” (paragraph 2)
                        • Dominion is ignoring the flaws he has identified and there are “very likely equally other critical flaws that are yet to be discovered.” (paragraphs 3-4)
                        • This is an “urgent” matter of national security and “nefarious actors” may be preparing to “exploit” these flaws in upcoming elections (paragraph 8)
                        • Professor Halderman carefully avoids saying anything about November 2020, but submitted emails to show he is communicating with CISA and that they stand ready to work with, taking the vulnerabilities he found so that they might be patched before the next election (which in many states occurs in November 2021).
                      6. Judge Amy Totenberg has refused to let Professor Halderman provide his report to DHS-CISA. Instead, she said, DHS must write her a letter directly asking for the report (which everyone knows will never happen), and then she will consider it.

                      Lest the enormity of that slip past the reader, let me tease it out again. Our nation’s leading professor on the cybervulnerabilities of voting systems is saying in a report (as he says publicly in the video below) that Dominion’s machines are compromised. Because there is an election two weeks from now he wants to warn, not the affected states themselves, but warn simply our federal government about the hacks he has found and which we must assume the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and everyone else has found), so that their DHS-CISA has the information to do its job. But he is not allowed to give that information to the US Government because he is blocked by a federal judge named Amy Totenberg (sister of NPR Nina Totenberg).

                      If only there were a pattern….
                      Explosive Discovery On Dominion Voting Machines
                      PS I would think any state Attorney General trying to get to the bottom of election meshugus might do well by subpoenaing that report from Georgia, or from Professor Halderman himself.

                      PPS I cannot let this moment pass without celebrating the schizophrenia this is inducing in the Left. The Daily Beast recent reporting shows they understand the seriousness of the issue, but struggle to reconcile that with their NPC-programming. They wish to take positions simultaneously that:
                      • this is an extremely serious problem for our society;
                      • we all know there was no election fraud affecting the November 2020 election because, well, we all already know it.

                      NATIONAL SECURITY:
                      Judge Seals Report on Voting Machine Vulnerability ‘ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY’

                      A judge in a Georgia election security lawsuit is working to tamp down voting machine conspiracy theories. But sealing a court file could stoke the controversy even more.
                      Jose Pagliery – Political Investigations Reporter
                      Shannon Vavra – National Security Reporter
                      Published Aug. 13, 2021 4:28AM ET

                      It’s the kind of report that could be weaponized by those looking to cast doubt on U.S. election results: a cybersecurity analysis that found flaws in Georgia’s voting machines and warns about the potential for future attacks. But a federal judge has sealed the report, and her attempt to shield the public from bad faith efforts to undermine the 2020 election could instead fuel the conspiracy theory dumpster fires—and keep the voting machine maker from figuring out how to fix it.

                      The 25,000-word report, commissioned by election integrity groups, does not touch on the 2020 results at all. But the report—authored by a University of Michigan computer science professor who has testified numerous times on Capitol Hill about U.S. election security, J. Alex Halderman—claims that Georgia’s ballot marking devices (BMDs) “suffer from specific, highly exploitable vulnerabilities that allow attackers to change votes despite the state’s purported defenses,” all by
                      using malware.

                      In a public court document, Halderman urged that his report be shared with Georgia election officials and the voting machine manufacturer to “address the vulnerabilities it describes before attackers exploit them.” Halderman wrote his report after he was given 12 weeks of access to an unused Dominion ICX voting machine, according to court documents.

                      Several sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity told The Daily Beast that the secret report makes two points: hacking these specific ballot marking devices is easier than previously believed, and Georgia does not have a process in place to catch it if it ever happens. “Georgia voters face an extreme risk that [ballot marking device]-based attacks could manipulate their individual votes and alter election outcomes,” Halderman wrote in a signed declaration on Aug. 2.

                      While Halderman’s claims are unverified, don’t address the 2020 election, and provide no evidence that anyone has taken advantage of the alleged vulnerabilities, their mere existence will likely be enough for many “Stop the Steal” advocates who believe the 2020 results were illegitimate despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

                      Which is perhaps why U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg made the report a “confidential document.”

                      At a recent hearing, Totenberg sealed the report, citing a strong reluctance to draw any public scrutiny to the sensitive details in the case. Totenberg would not even allow an election integrity group to openly advocate for disclosure of the report, according to a transcript of a July 26 court hearing obtained by The Daily Beast. Instead, the judge asked that any such argument be filed in secret under seal. “There are so many other ways to educate the public besides trying to use this case,” Totenberg warned on the call. “I’m at the end of my rope about that.”

                      Totenberg decided to limit circulation of the report, opting to keep it to “attorneys’ eyes only”—and away from engineers at Dominion itself— out of a concern that exposing it to company employees would make it “subject to disclosure in other litigation.” “I’m concerned enough about the information contained in it… I have seen how this can blow up,” Totenberg said, according to the transcript.

                      That decision could stoke conspiracy theorists, but experts in the rightwing media ecosystem were also concerned that any information about potential issues with voting machines might be exploited. Sam Jackson, an assistant professor who teaches about online extremism at the University at Albany, told The Daily Beast that the mere existence of this story could fuel conspiracy theories. “I would not be surprised to see some far-right media outlets run very inflammatory headlines that are deliberate misreadings of this piece,” he said.

                      Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, which scrutinizes right-leaning media, expects the “very well-developed conspiracy theory network” built in recent years on social media and alternative TV stations like Newsmax and One America News Network to wrongfully use the existence of the report to “undermine the validity of elections in the minds of conservatives.”

                      “They will use anything they can to fan the flames of these conspiracy theories,” Gertz said.

                      Got it?

                      Editors note: If you are having trouble following the logic, here it is. Halderman’s report shows that hacking these machines is easy, so “Georgia voters face an extreme risk that [ballot marking device]-based attacks could manipulate their individual votes and alter election outcomes.” And Georgia will not catch it if it happens. The same is true of 16 other states using these systems. That is highly concerning. Unless a Republican says the same thing, in which case it is a conspiracy theory. So when the judge suppresses the best information our country has about an issue of national self-determination, it is not actually suppression, it is “stopping a conspiracy theory”. Because a Republican said it. And the real problem with letting citizens know that votes can be manipulated and election outcomes altered… is that conservatives might use that knowledge to “undermine the validity of elections in the minds of conservatives” (though why an election in which votes are manipulated and outcomes altered has “validity” is considered something so obvious the Daily Beast need not address it).

                      Is this starting to seem strange to anyone else?


                      • North Carolina Agrees to Release Records Showing Foreigners Voted

                        By Matthew Vadum

                        February 1, 2022

                        Records that show foreigners registered to vote—and actually voted in North Carolina elections—will be disclosed by the state’s board of elections as a result of its legal settlement with an electoral integrity group.

                        The Jan. 31 announcement that a settlement (pdf) had been reached came weeks after Garbant Piquant of Garner, N.C., was arrested and charged with falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote, voting by an alien, and passport fraud.

                        Authorities say the Bahamas native, who is not a U.S. citizen, voted in every primary and general election from 2018 through 2020, as The Epoch Times previously reported.

                        The legal complaint against the North Carolina State Board of Elections and its executive director Karen Brinson Bell was filed June 17, 2019, and later amended.

                        According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which brought this lawsuit in federal court in North Carolina, the settlement is a victory for transparency in elections.
                        ‘Huge Win for Transparency’

                        The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) provides that election officials must allow inspection of all records related to the maintenance of the voter rolls.

                        The elections board agreed to settle the case after a federal appeals court determined that the disclosure provision of NVRA requires states to “make available for public inspection … all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

                        “This is a huge win for transparency in North Carolina’s elections,” PILF president J. Christian Adams said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

                        “The public has a right to know about election vulnerabilities,” Adams said.

                        “These records conclusively show that foreigners have been registering to vote and voting in North Carolina elections. It is a shame our efforts to disclose these records were met with such resistance by election officials.

                        “Real foreign interference in American elections happens when foreigners cast ballots. This victory demonstrates that changes to national voter registration policies are needed to prevent this from happening.”

                        Along the way to the settlement the foundation’s legal complaint was dismissed by a U.S. district court.

                        PILF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which ruled in favor of the group May 10, 2021, and reinstated the lawsuit, remanding the case to the district court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
                        Lower Court Was Wrong

                        Federal Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama, wrote in her court opinion that the district court had erred in tossing the lawsuit for failing to state a valid claim under the NVRA given what she called “the sensitive nature of the information sought and the potential for abuse.” An apparent reference to information about innocent U.S. citizens that could be abused.

                        The lower court was wrong to dismiss the case at an early stage in the litigation before discovery had been conducted, Keenan wrote.

                        The Indianapolis-based foundation characterizes itself as “the nation’s only public interest law firm dedicated wholly to election integrity,” saying that it exists “to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections.”

                        PILF boasts that it has been “uncovering government records showing foreigners voting across the United States including in Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, and California.”

                        The group is currently suing in Pennsylvania to secure records involving “a multi-decade failure to prevent aliens from registering and voting there.”

                        Patrick Gannon, public information director for the North Carolina board of elections, offered the board’s perspective on the settlement, which it had unanimously voted to accept Jan. 20.

                        The settlement requires the board to give PILF records concerning audit processes and list maintenance activities related to non-U.S. citizens, in exchange for a complete dismissal of the lawsuit, Gannon said in a statement responding to an inquiry by The Epoch Times.
                        Protecting Privacy

                        It is important that the settlement states that board “may redact all information that would allow PILF to personally identify any individual registrant who was being reviewed for potential improper registration, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, street addresses, signatures, and identifying numbers used for registration and voting purposes,” Gannon said.

                        PILF sought to obtain this personal information in the litigation, he added.

                        The board’s “goal all along was protecting the privacy of individuals who were only suspected of improper registration,” Gannon said, adding that most of those individuals were found to be properly registered citizens.

                        Both a federal district court and the 4th Circuit Court rejected PILF’s argument that it should obtain such personal information, he said, providing a link to the circuit court opinion written by Judge Keenan (pdf).

                        The elections board will provide the records but will redact all personally identifying information, as well as pay PILF $5,000.

                        It could not release the records previously because at the time a federal judge had ordered it not to do so, Gannon said.

                        The settlement agreement “explicitly disclaims that the state board violated any law,” he said.


                        • GRISWOLD IS IN HOT WATER!

                          Posted byNovember 19, 2021

                          Colorado citizens [Editor’s note, this suit is not a USEIP lawsuit. USEIP is only reporting on the official court case filing] sue Secretary of State Jena Griswold over election violations. Case requests full forensic audit of Colorado voting systems and 2020 election to ensure free and fair elections for Colorado voters.

                          [Denver, Colorado, November 19, 2021] – Today an explosive case, Hanks et al v. Griswold was filed in Denver District Court. The most damning facts of the case claim that Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and her employees destroyed election records from the 2020 election. Griswold and other Colorado election officials are required by state law to preserve those election records for twenty-five months, and by federal law for twenty-two months. The relief sought in this case is a full, independent forensic audit of Colorado voting systems and the 2020 election in Colorado so citizens’ trust in their elections might be restored.

                          When asked whether the deleted elections records were significant or simply inconsequential extra files on election servers, or electronic voting equipment, Col. (ret.) Shawn Smith USAF systems testing expert stated, “The Federal Election Commission’s 2002 Voting System Standards, which are a mandatory standard for Colorado voting systems, require voting systems to maintain and produce ‘all audit trail information,’ including operating system and hardware. The Department of Justice has already confirmed that digital records ARE election records. The federal and state statutes that require preservation of election records were written for the EXACT purpose of ensuring the availability of records EXACTLY like the those destroyed by the Secretary of State.”

                          A second claim in the case states that Griswold “failed to employ a federally accredited laboratory to test Colorado voting systems before the 2020 election.” When investigating whether the claim is a mere clerical oversight, the exhibits included in the case show otherwise. Griswold’s selected testing lab’s, Pro V&V’s, accredited status expired in 2017. The next time Pro V&V was officially accredited was 2021. However, in 2019, Griswold issued an official letter [exhibit 1] approving Pro V&V’s test plans, and Griswold cited that testing in her certification of Colorado voting systems used in November 2020. Within the forty-seven months Pro V&V was unaccredited, meaning the lab was not qualified to conduct proper electronic voting equipment testing, Griswold repeatedly used the testing lab and cited its testing reports.

                          Colorado voters shouldered all the risk when Griswold approved an unaccredited lab to test voting systems. Every single Colorado county used voting equipment during the 2020 election that was not properly tested, and the lapsed lab accreditation likely affected the voting systems used in the 2021 election, as well.

                          The final claim in the case against Griswold addresses what appears to be Griswold’s attempt to cover-up potential wrongdoing. In June 2021, Griswold issued emergency election rules limiting who can access electronic voting equipment; “Defendant’s [Griswold’s] employees, County Clerk’s employees, election judges, and voting system vendors. No independent consultants are allowed.” Griswold’s emergency election rules impact Colorado elections in two distinct ways.

                          First, the rules ensure that any independent forensic audits of election equipment, which is exactly what Colorado citizens are asking for, are forbidden. Secondly, none of the people or parties Griswold identifies as being allowed to access voting equipment have adequate technical expertise to verify the electronic voting equipment.


                          • New evidence in colorado catches embattled secretary of state off guard

                            This is a developing story, but I want to get this out so that everyone understands what’s happening. Things are heating up in Colorado. Here is what we know.
                            jena gets some bad news

                            On Monday, January 24, 2022, Jena Griswold was having a very bad day.

                            As everyone should know by now, Jena is facing a pretty explosive lawsuit from elected officials around the state of Colorado. If you need to catch up, you can read about that here: Griswold is in Hot Water

                            A big part of that case is the saga of Tina Peters and Mesa County, so you should read up on that as well, especially if you’re new to Colorado’s role in the stolen election on November 3, 2020.

                            The case, Hanks et al v. Griswold was filed in November of 2021 in the City and County of Denver District Court, and Griswold’s lawyers recently filed a motion to dismiss, on standing, what they cannot defend, on substance.

                            In response to Griswold’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed new evidence in the case, disclosing the existence of a second forensic image in Elbert County, Colorado, and requesting a court order to have it forensically examined to confirm what cyber experts found in Mesa: destruction of election records, an uncertifiable, non-compliant voting system, and a coffin-nail in the unwarranted “gold standard” refrain. A press release issued by Jena’s office on Monday revealed the discovery:
                            “The Secretary of State’s Office became aware of the potential security protocol breach through an affidavit signed by Elbert County Clerk and Recorder Schroeder as part of the lawsuit that he and five other plaintiffs have brought against the Department based on multiple unfounded election conspiracy theories. That affidavit admitted that the Elbert County Clerk had made an image of the voting system hard drive sometime before August 27, 2021, but it did not disclose how the copy was made or what security measures were taken at the time.”
                            Secretary of State Press Release, January 24, 2022

                            In an affidavit signed by Clerk Schroeder, he explains his actions:
                            “I was told that there was evidence that the ‘trusted build’ process that was performed on Mesa County’s Dominion voting system during May of 2021, had erased electronic files that were part of the 2020 election records. This information was concerning, because I have a legal duty to retain election records for 25 months after every election. The purpose of retaining the records is so that a proper audit of an election can be performed. I was concerned that the ‘trusted build’ process might erase electronic election records from the Elbert County elections systems, which would violate state law.”
                            Elbert County Clerk & Recorder Dallas Schroeder, January 7, 2022

                            Just in case you’re not fully comprehending the explosiveness of this disclosure, let’s go back to Jena’s press release which confirms that this newly disclosed evidence (the Elbert County forensic image) was taken before the Colorado trusted build updates.
                            “This breach in security protocol occurred prior to the 2021 trusted build of Elbert County’s 2021 voting equipment, which updates systems against vulnerabilities. Therefore, the Secretary of State’s Office does not believe at this time that the unauthorized imaging has created an imminent or direct security risk to Colorado’s elections.”
                            Secretary of State Press Release, January 24, 2022

                            The SecState’s claim of “based on unfounded election conspiracy theories,” is remarkable. And false.
                            there is no breach in security protocol; this is a lie

                            The basis of the plaintiffs’ claims is filed with the court and has been provided to Secretary Griswold’s counsel, and directly to her before that. It’s a stack of government documents, either publicly posted or obtained through open records requests. And it’s damning.

                            In other words, not only ought Griswold to know better, she DOES know better. But this isn’t her first time making false statements to the public. More on that in a minute.

                            For the Clerk to take a forensic image of the machines, particularly when there are concerns that the updates the vendor is conducting will destroy election records and evidence, is not a violation of any security protocol or, more importantly, legal statute. It is, in fact, the Clerk’s statutory responsibility to preserve election records for 25 months according to Colorado law. Clerk Schroeder, like Clerk Peters, was doing his job.

                            Yet, Jena is setting up to attack a second Clerk based on false allegations of a crime.
                            where have we seen this before?

                            For Tina, the false allegation was that she leaked passwords. Remember that? The entire premise for the SecState’s actions against Tina Peters was that she leaked passwords, but we never hear about THAT allegation anymore. They want you to forget.

                            Also forget that Tina never had the passwords, and their safekeeping and security was the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State. They were Griswold’s passwords.

                            And then forget that no one would have any idea that CodeMonkeyZ shared Mesa County passwords except that Jena Griswold held a press conference and confirmed to the world that his disclosure was the Mesa County passwords, an action that confounded everyone, everywhere, with even a cursory understanding of security protocols in the event of a breach.
                            “you aren’t authorized to expose my criminal activity”

                            Now we hear about unauthorized backups. Unauthorized by whom? In both cases, the Clerk authorized the backups under their own authority – and duty – as the elected official responsible for elections administration in their county.

                            If Griswold was competent and lawful, she would be demanding to know which Clerks DIDN’T conduct back-ups to preserve election records in accordance with Colorado and Federal law – especially upon learning, as she did with the first Mesa County report, that the trusted build deleted election records in violation of the law. I mean, if she wasn’t in on it that is.
                            i have a question

                            Just planning ahead, I have a few lines of questioning for those in Denver who swore the oath to the US and Colorado Constitutions:
                            1. Can we expect Jena Griswold to order the raid of Dallas Schroeder’s office and home? Should Clerk Schroeder’s staff prepare for law enforcement to kick down their doors? Should Elbert County activists expect their children to be accosted by law enforcement officials?
                            2. Can we expect Jena Griswold to decertify the machines in Elbert County? Will there be charges filed in Elbert? Friendly reminder, none of the raids in Mesa county had accompanying charges against those who had their lives turned upside down by Jena’s flying monkeys. Or, like in Mesa County, will Jena Griswold unleash the power of the state against those who seek the truths she is fighting to keep concealed?
                            3. Finally, how did ANY of this pass review by the Colorado Attorney General, who is responsible to defend Colorado’s Constitution on behalf of the citizens? Is there anybody home at the Attorney General’s office, or have they just become the personal white-collar defense attorneys for the unaccountable Secretary of State?
                            the gold standard of criminal cover ups

                            I have to speculate on Griswold’s reaction because her office didn’t respond to my request for comment. And in case you think I am being hyperbolic in anticipating the Secretary’s response, here is the contemporaneous press from when Jena Griswold’s learned that there was a Mesa County image that might expose her crimes:

                            Sherronna Bishop on the Mike Gallagher Podcast: Salem Media

                            Sherronna Bishop on Warroom with Steve Bannon

                            Tina Peters Full Interview on Warroom with Steve Bannon

                            Gold Star Mother, Tina Peters interviewed on Warroom with Steve Bannon

                            Sherronna Bishop, First American Mother raided by the FBI on

                            Be sure to check out the bit about the Feds dragging Sherronna Bishop’s teenage daughter around by her hoodie. That was pretty special.
                            the buck stops with the clerk on election records preservation

                            Remember the press conference in August 2021 where Jena nervously and unconvincingly told the world that there was a “breach.” That was after she sent “law enforcement” to raid Tina Peters’ office and the home of one of her staff.

                            You might also remember Matt Crane, Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerks Association (CCCA), standing next to and supporting Secretary Griswold during this press conference.

                            I reached out to Director Crane prior to publishing to ask if he had any comment in the disclosure of a second image. He quickly responded with, The CCCA is aware of the recent reports regarding Elbert County. We are continuing to monitor the situation and support a full investigation to bring all facts to light.”

                            All facts? Quick reminder that the CCCA is funded by the dues your County Clerk pays (with your tax dollars). A source close to the CCCA tells me there is also some additional “sponsorship” funding from one or more of your favorite election vendors, which I will dig into for a future post.

                            Regardless, you can search in vain for any public records and statements where Director Crane demanded that the Mesa County District Attorney investigate the destruction of election records. You know, the evidence revealed by the expert forensic report, filed with DA Rubinstein, directly involving CCCA dues-paying Clerk Tina Peters?

                            With friends like the CCCA who needs to pay dues anywhere else?

                            Apparently “all facts” and “light” are relative concepts for the CCCA, but at least we can agree that a full investigation into the actions of ALL parties in this Colorado telenovela is needed.
                            CALL TO ACTION

                            Reach out to your clerk and let them know that you support a full investigation to bring ALL FACTS to light – especially the facts revealed by the forensic images in both Mesa and Elbert Counties.
                            YOUR CLERK SHOULD KNOW YOUR NAME BY NOW

                            You should also tell them to stop paying dues to the CCCA given the CCCA is nowhere to be found when a Clerk decides to do the will of the people. The irony is that Clerks Peters and Schroeder will be in the clear because of their diligence in election record preservation; the clerks following the direction of the CCCA will be in a jam if they didn’t preserve their records properly.
                            can jena get away with this tactic twice?

                            Back to Elbert County and the impending smears, the standard has been set in Mesa County. Remember, there have been zero charges filed against Clerk Peters, and all of this political theater and lawfare against her (and anyone who defends her) was for ONE purpose only:

                            To cover up a stolen election and run out the 25-month clock on transparency.

                            We know what the Trusted Build is designed to delete. Doug Gould, Draza Smith, Jeff O’Donnell and other experts have analyzed the Mesa County forensic images – before and after the trusted build bleaching, er, I mean, update – and we know that the log files, critical election records that are required by law to be preserved, were deleted. The Mesa County election has been examined from many different angles – and more revelations are coming.
                            The Mesa Report – Cyber Forensic Analysis (Doug Gould)DOWNLOAD
                            Mesa Tabulator Analysis (Draza Smith)DOWNLOAD
                            Mesa Database & System Analysis (Jeff O’Donnell)DOWNLOAD
                            Election records, log files, and evidence under preservation orders in other cases were deleted in violation of both state and federal law. This is a FACT, and because of the heroic actions of Tina Peters and the tireless work of citizen experts and analysts, we know some of what those deleted log files reveal (there are more revelations pending).

                            Now, we learn that another Clerk in Colorado, Elbert County Clerk and Recorder Dallas Schroeder, had the foresight to back up the People’s information.

                            That means we can compare what was found in Mesa County against another Colorado county.

                            This is a win for transparency and for the People. And, if she had nothing to hide, Secretary Griswold would welcome the transparency, and vindication, that would come with the forensic analysis of the images in Elbert County.
                            The SecState’s position that “only we can audit ourselves” points either to complicity, personal latency, or a religious reverence for magical machinery. Cheers to Vanessa for this meme.
                            Predictably, she isn’t welcoming transparency.

                            As you can read in her press release, she is following the exact same playbook she used with Clerk Peters. She has declared, with no evidence, that there was a security breach. She is demonizing the Clerk who has the complete authority and responsibility to take the image. The Secretary of State has been claiming victimhood about personal attacks and threats against officials, yet she put the Elbert County Clerk’s picture up on her personal Facebook page to repost her smears against him. She is fabricating a crime, again, to cover up the stolen election.

                            But there is a key difference.

                            This new evidence – the Elbert County forensic image taken before the trusted build update – was disclosed as part of a lawsuit against her. The Clerk that Jumpsuit Jena is now attacking is a key plaintiff in a case against her.

                            What are the legal implications of Jena going after Clerk Schroeder considering their status as opposing litigants?

                            I am popping some popcorn in anticipation of what she does next.
                            eyes on the mission

                            Regardless of Jonestown Jena’s panicked next move, the most important questions now are:

                            What will the Elbert County forensic images reveal?

                            Will the analysis confirm cyber expert Doug Gould’s findings in Mesa County about the Colorado Secretary of State’s Trusted Build?

                            Will we learn even more about what happened on November 3, 2020?

                            Has Jena realized yet that she doesn’t know how many more Clerks honored their oaths of office and fulfilled their duty to back up their election records?

                            Someone close to the matter, when I asked the most important questions we should be asking, said (terrifyingly):

                            Will the U.S. Department of Justice step in if destruction of election records for a federal election are confirmed by a second forensic examination?


                            Place your bets. My sources say the images are safely in the hands of the White Hats, folks.

                            So, we are going to find out.

                            RatioInvictus, Vanessa, and Holly at Altitude contributed to this report.


                            • 25000 Counterfeit Ballots included in AZ Audit Count



                              • Results of South Carolina Citizen-Led Ballot Canvass of 2020 General Election to be Presented on Saturday, February 5, 2022 in Columbia, S.C.

                                By Jim Hoft
                                Published February 2, 2022 at 3:33pm

                                Results of South Carolina Citizen-Led Canvass of 2020 November General Election To Be Presented on February 5, 2022 in Columbia, S.C.

                                Who: SC Safe Elections Group – A non-partisan citizen volunteer group focused on election integrity.

                                What: Media and Elected Officials are invited to attend a presentation by group members and election experts on the findings of the canvass of S.C. voter rolls and the 2020 November general election. The public will be able to view a live feed online at

                                When: 1:00-5:00 p.m. EST, February 5, 2022

                                Where: Segra Park, Club Lounge, 1640 Freed Street, Columbia, S.C.

                                Columbia, S.C. – January 25, 2022 – SC Safe Elections Group, a non-partisan volunteer group comprised of approximately 75 citizens from across eight South Carolina counties will present findings of its canvass of South Carolina voter rolls and the 2020 General Election on February 5, 2022 from 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. EST in the Club Lounge at Segra Park in Columbia, S.C. Presenters will share results that revealed widespread inaccuracies with voter rolls and potentially ineligible votes.

                                “Even though South Carolina is a red state and went for Donald Trump in the 2020 election, our canvassing efforts found bombshell evidence of phantom voters, deceased voters, ineligible voters, lost votes, cross-state votes and many other anomalies with the 2020 election,” said Laura Scharr, leader of the South Carolina voter integrity effort. “Our goal with this event is to inform the public and our lawmakers of the issues we uncovered and to request specific steps that will improve the accuracy of our elections.”

                                The public will be able to view the presentation through a live feed at: A summary report of the findings of the audit can also be found at this website.