By Patrick Colbeck
On June 23, 2021, the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee approved the release of their report on the November 2020 Election in Michigan. The Committee is Chaired by Senator Ed McBroom (R) and includes Vice Chair Senator Lana Theis (R), Senator John Bizon (R), and Senator Jeff Irwin (D).
“This Committee found no evidence of widespread or systemic fraud in Michigan’s prosecution of the 2020 election.”MI Senate Oversight Committee
The same committee members then proceeded to claim that there were “severe weaknesses in our election system”. Seems pretty “systemic” to me. To add insult to injury, the same committee members pushing this double speak are now pursuing “statutory improvements to our elections system”. Does it seem odd to you that the same people who stated there was no evidence of election fraud are now championing the cause of statutory improvements to our election system? If they don’t know what fraud has been committed, how could we reasonably have any confidence that the signatories to this report are competent enough to determine what statutory improvements are necessary?
In the wake of the release of this “report”, I was contacted by multiple reporters seeking a comment from me on the report. After all, about half of the content referenced in the report corresponds to information that I have shared with the committee on behalf of fellow affiants. The other half corresponding to evidence surfaced by Attorney Matt DePerno and his team during their investigation of Antrim County election. It may be just me, but I like to read reports before commenting upon them. Once I did review their report, I released the following formal statement the same day to the media…which was promptly ignored by the vast majority of reporters seeking my comments.
I believe that the 55 Page report by the MI Senate Oversight Committee demands a much more substantive review than I was able to provide in the rush to respond to media inquiries on the day of the report release. This post is my attempt to do so.
NOTE: This post in response to the Committee report has been prepared in a matter of days under threat of investigation using publicly available data while the Committee required months of work supported by staff and subpoena authority.
Before I get into specific observations, I would like to share the following general observations concerning the report:
- Significant emphasis in the report was placed upon how election SHOULD have worked not how it DID work. Sworn affidavits and eyewitness testimonies from poll challengers on the ground were dismissed as confused or due to poor training while testimony from election officials were affirmed as a matter of fact whether supported by evidence or not.
- The Committee repeatedly pushed the responsibility for investigating evidence to the citizens offering the evidence. These citizens often did not have access to the information needed to investigate further. In fact, the Michigan Secretary of State and Dominion lawyers waged an aggressive campaign to block any attempts by citizens to access this information via clerks willing to cooperate with such an investigation. In contrast, the Committee (i.e. the people PAID to investigate such matters) were able to access this information via legislative subpoena authority, yet, when they did so, they required non-disclosure agreements for anyone in the legislature seeking to view the data gathered from the subpoena.
- There was a remarkable lack of substantive footnote references in the Committee report that would allow interested observers to review the sources for themselves. Context-specific links to footnote references would allow readers to draw their own conclusions regarding the evidence discussed. Clearly, the intent of the report was to tell readers what to think rather than provide them with the information needed for them to examine the evidence for themselves. The appendix, for example, which in scholarly papers features a bibliography, simply provides a table of Antrim County election results by precinct plus images of precinct tape printouts from each precinct without explanation. The table and images in the Appendix don’t even include timestamps. No wonder they do not understand why citizens are demanding a forensic audit. There are significantly more references provided in this post. Readers are thus provided with the information they need to make an informed decision about the validity of the assertions made.
- The report consistently repeats the flawed assertion that the integrity of the election can be demonstrated simply by running ballots through the tabulator. Using their logic, if the tabulation yields the same results as the tape printouts from election day, then all is good. No wonder they equate recounting ballots with an audit. Anyone who understands how elections are conducted, however, knows that the integrity of any election is dependent upon much, much more than a successful tabulation of the ballots at hand. In order to demonstrate the integrity of an election, it is critical that the chain of custody for election materials is maintained. That is why it is a federal felony to destroy election records within 22 months of an election. Yet, the report asserts that insisting that election officials demonstrate that the chain of custody has been secured is “incredibly misleading, demeaning, and irresponsible.” I would assert that the exact opposite of this is true. Fraudulent voters in the Qualified Voter File result in fraudulent voters in Poll Books. Fraudulent voters in Poll Books results in fraudulent ballots being issued. Fraudulent ballots being issued results in fraudulent election results. Not a difficult concept to grasp for most reasonable observers. Demonstration of the integrity of the chain of custody is an important factor in the call by citizens for a forensic audit. The report’s dismissal of the importance of the chain of custody demonstrates why the pursuit of a forensic audit has been dismissed by members of the Michigan Senate. Their failure to understand the importance of the chain of custody is a serious issue.
- The Committee appears to be operating under an extremely unique definition of “election fraud” that dismissed any evidence of fraud if it did not add up to the 154,188 votes promoted as the margin of victory for Joe Biden. This failure of reasoning dismisses the cumulative effect of breaches in the chain of custody and violations of existing statute.
- The report appears to be designed to intimidate anyone asserting election fraud rather than inform reasonable observers. The Chair of the Senate Oversight Committee, Senator Ed McBroom has a well-known visceral hatred of Attorney Matt DePerno who is leading the investigation into Antrim County election fraud. This hatred appears to have significantly influenced his efforts to “investigate” allegations of election fraud. In other words, it appears that a petty personal agenda of the Committee Chair severely impaired his objectivity as evidenced by this report and references to “known liars” in related correspondence. In fact, the report calls for criminal investigation of people such as Matt DePerno by the attorney general of “those who have been utilizing misleading and false information about Antrim County to raise money or publicity for their own ends”. That is how a banana republic operates not our constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, we have a right to free speech. We have a right to freedom of assembly. We have a right to freedom of the press. We have a right to seek redress of our grievances. Under the Michigan Constitution, we also have a right to an audit. The Committee investigation seems to be focused more upon settling personal vendettas rather than respecting the rights of our citizens.
The report broke out its “findings” into 13 unique sections. The following tables feature the false assertions (i.e. the #BigLie) made in the report within each of these sections and contrast these assertions with more reasonable, fact-based assertions (i.e. the #BigTruth). The #BigLie is that assertions of election fraud are themselves fraudulent. This #BigLie narrative is being pushed aggressively by many media outlets (See Decision Day: #BigLie vs #BigTruth). This post will instead push the #BigTruth that election fraud is real and significant.
Buckle up. Chances are that many of you have never heard the evidence that will be presented in the following tables. Rest assured. I am only able to provide a small sample of the evidence available in support of many of the assertions in this post. It is my hope that the evidence that I have been able to provide is compelling enough for you to question the false narratives being pushed by those who are not relentlessly pursuing the truth.
Deceased and Non-Residents Voting
|The Committee researched these claims and concluded that most were false. There were two claims of deceased individuals casting votes that were found to be true; one was a clerical error while the other was a timing issue. The Committee concluded that none of these constituted fraudulent election activities or manipulations.||The report is noticeably devoid of any specific references in support of their assertions. Only anecdotal samples were provided. What specific claims were investigated? How were they investigated? Who provided the list of 200 individuals in Wayne County? What were the names they investigated? |
It should be noted that it was clear to citizen investigators that the MI Secretary of State Qualified Voter File was being scrubbed in the wake of the election (See communications). This is why chain of custody of all election records including the Qualified Voter File is important.
Unsolicited Absentee Voter Ballot and Application Mass Mailings
|There was no evidence presented to the Committee indicating that hundreds of thousands of absentee voter ballots were mailed to Michigan voters without previously being requested. The Committee concludes this demonstrates a clear vulnerability for fraud that may be undetected, if the actual voter does not vote at all. If the actual voter does vote, it will create turmoil and draw attention from state and local officials. However, the lack of any such incidents or turmoil in the November 2020 election creates a clear probability that no such efforts were committed to any significant extent.||The Committee asserts that the lack of attention by state and local officials to the possibility that fraudulent ballots were mailed “creates a clear probability that no such efforts were committed to any significant extent”. In other words, if election officials didn’t detect the issue, it isn’t a real issue despite what citizens receiving these ballots may say. There are many affidavits attesting to the receipt of multiple BALLOTS not simply ballot applications. See one example.|
|The chance of encountering the attempted double vote scenario is so statistically unlikely as to make impossible even a small effort to do so.||In Detroit there were at least four instances of Poll Books. Under Michigan law (MCL 168.735), there is only supposed to be ONE poll book instance during an election cycle. See the testimony of Poll Worker Jesse Jacobs who asserted that she observed “a large number of people who came to the satellite location to vote in-person, but they had already applied for an absentee ballot. These people were allowed to vote in-person and were not required to return the mailed absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the vote lost the mailed absentee ballot”. These facts alone increases the likelihood that the citizens of Michigan’s most populous city would have a significant opportunity to vote more than once.|
3rd Party/Private Funds Used for Public Election Activities and Equipment
|A summary of the work and findings on this issue is not finalized at this time and may be amended to this report at a later date.||See Amistad Project Michigan lawsuit and CTCL Grants for evidence of why the Committee’s failure to address this issue should be of concern.|
Rights and Duties of Poll Challengers/Watchers Improperly and Unlawfully Restricted
|While many accusations will remain just that, one thing is perfectly clear: the rights and duties of poll watchers and challengers must be better understood and reinforced in their respective training and must be protected equally by election officials. This is an area in need of much reform and greater clarification in election law.||Election law is already very clear. Poll Challenger rights and duties are specified in MCL 168.727, 168.728, 168.729, 168.730, 168.731, 168.732, 168.733, 168.734. These rights and duties were well understood by poll challengers. They were not well-understood by Poll Workers who lacked sufficient training, deliberately ignored them, or were instructed to subvert them during training. What was severely lacking was an enforcement of these statutes. The report attempts to make poll challenger affidavits into a big “he said, she said” wash. No. I was there. There are numerous affidavits of poll workers and poll challengers citing agitators seeking to interfere with poll challenger duties (Examples MI Affidavits 28, 30e, 4, 6b, 13, 14, 17a, 26). There were zero prosecutions for these offenses.|
|The concern of partisan volunteers cloaked as Independent challengers through non-profit or third-party entities only added to the accusations of an unfair or unbalanced election environment.||I personally served as a Poll Challenger for the Election Integrity Fund from 5pm on November 3, 2020 until 5:30pm on November 4, 2020. The Election Integrity Fund is a 501c4 which trained hundreds of Poll Challengers for the 2020 election. I find it quite startling that the Committee is concerned about neutral organizations monitoring the integrity of the election but are dismissive of clear violations of the law by agitators and poll workers. It was clear from testimonials provided during the MI Senate Oversight Committee hearing (2h17m mark) by poll challenger Hima Kolanagireddy and others that Democrats were deliberately interfering with Poll Challengers. Sadly, this Committee assertion is yet another attempt to silence the voice of citizens seeking to expose election fraud.|
|The Committee heard testimony and saw evidence that independent observers and challengers were frequently operating for one of the two major parties making their labels as Independents confusing and unhelpful.||As one who served as an independent Poll Challenger for the Election Integrity Fund, I can clearly attest that my purpose was to ensure that free and fair elections were conducted in accordance with state law. As a point of fact, as a MI State Senator, I called for an investigation into the 2016 election in which President Trump was announced as the winner. Election integrity is the focus of people such as myself who serve on behalf of non-partisan organizations like the Election Integrity Fund. What is confusing or unhelpful about that?|
|Despite these mistakes and, potentially, illegal actions, the Committee found no evidence fraudulent activities were undertaken or that such actions led to irreparable harm to ballots or vote counting. Numerous safeguards, particularly the partisan make up of the election boards themselves, were not lost, despite these actions.||Despite acknowledging potentially illegal actions, there is a notable lack of call for an attorney general investigation into such matters. Yet such an investigation was called for by the Committee on matters for which there was no evidence of potentially illegal actions. |
Furthermore, the partisan make up of the Wayne Count election board failed to prevent irreparable harm to ballots or vote counting. As a point of fact, the initial vote by the Wayne County Board of Canvassers (i.e. election board) was NOT to certify the election in Wayne County. Then, after significant intimidation of the Canvassers similar to that leveraged against Poll Challengers, the partisan Canvassers provided a conditional certification. Later, once safely out of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting, both Republican Canvassers (Monica Palmer and Bill Hartman) issued affidavits asserting that the results should not be certified.
Antrim County Results
|A complete hand recount validated the original, official results as accurate. Further, the Committee is appalled at what can only be deduced as a willful ignorance or avoidance of this proof perpetuated by some leading such speculation.||The official story regarding the switching of 7,060 votes from Trump to Biden in Antrim County attributes the cause to “human error”. This “official story” however merits further investigation. In this report, the Committee asserts much as fact which actually demands further examination.|
For starters, a recount is not an audit. Fraud-deniers such as the Committee, the MI SoS and Antrim County Clerk continue to confuse the terms as if they are the same thing. They are not. We need to examine the entire chain of custody not simply the ballots that find their way into whatever container they were stored in prior to their recount.
The Antrim County Clerk is on record admitting to the destruction of election records at an Antrim County Commissioner meeting. That indicates much more than human error. That is called a felony. It is a violation of Title 52 Section 20702 of USC. It also indicates that the Clerk was committed to covering up evidence of election record modifications (See Antrim County: Cover Up? and Antrim County: The Thread That Unravels 2020 Election Theft). Furthermore, evidence that contradicts testimony of Clerk and Prof Halderman has been submitted as part of Antrim County court case.
Initial tally was off by 7,060 votes not 12 as often cited by Antrim County fraud apologists.
Let’s now explore their assertion of willful ignorance on the part of those questioning the official story regarding of the Antrim County election. I would submit that the following list of questions needs to be asked of Committee members in order to determine if they might be guilty of some willful ignorance:
Which do you believe is a better measure of election integrity?
a. Audit log demonstrating that the election record Chain of Custody was not breached
b. Hand Recount confirms Statement of Votes
If a), why do you repeatedly assert that b) is sufficient to demonstrate no evidence of election fraud?
If a), why are you not pursuing a forensic audit?
Have you asked the SoS why she opted to perform recounts rather than procedural audits in wake of 2020 election fraud allegations?
Would you classify the installation of non-certified software on election equipment as an “irregularity” that needs to be investigated?
Are you aware that multiple technical experts discovered the installation of SQL Server Management Studio on Antrim County election equipment?
Are you aware that SQL Server Management Studio is not part of the Election Assistance Commission certified software configuration?
Are you aware of why this software is not allowed as part of the certified software configuration? Do you know what functions it is capable of?
Do you believe that the installation of non-certified software capable of changing election results would be grounds for decertification of the election? If not, what do you believe is the appropriate criteria for the “certification” of an election?
Are you aware that the Qualified Voter File does not account for 1,061 out of the 15,962 ballots said to have been cast in Antrim County? Would you concede this as an “irregularity”?
Are you aware of fraud, hacking or irregularities in other counties in Michigan?
Are you aware of the installation of a 4G wireless modem on the motherboard of an ES&S voting machine in one of Michigan’s counties besides Antrim?
Are you aware that there is evidence of this device communicating with foreign servers (Taiwan, Germany) during the election cycle?
Does it concern you that there is evidence of foreign communications with our election system?
Are you aware that all of our county election systems have network connections to the state election management system?
Are you aware that all of our county election systems have network connections with precinct voting machines across the each county?
Are you aware of the fact that if any one of these networked voting machines are compromised, the chain of custody regarding our elections is compromised?
|Mr. DePerno’s lawsuit, Exhibit 6, highlighted by former state Sen. Patrick Colbeck in a web post dated April 9, 2021 and entitled “Modem Chips Embedded in Voting System Computer Motherboards,” feature a voting machine that is not used by Antrim County.||See the actual web post referenced. There is no assertion in the post referenced that the chip was found in Antrim County merely that it was discovered during the Antrim County lawsuit investigations. In fact, the post clearly listed the counties in which ES&S equipment could be found. Antrim County was not included in that list. If the actual link to the post were provided in the report, citizens could review the post themselves. Instead, readers are encouraged to believe the Committee assertions in the report are true because “they said so”. The Committee clearly intended to impugn the integrity of both Matthew DePerno and myself by creating the impression that our assertions regarding the chip were inaccurate. The fact remains. ES&S machines with hidden 4G chipsets on motherboards do not have to be located in Antrim County to pose a threat to the integrity of the 2020 election. In fact, if the Committee were intellectually honest, the presence of these devices in eight of Michigan’s 83 counties should have raised alarm bells. They are designed to “connect to the internet” as soon as they are powered on thereby exposing all devices connected to them to external cyber attacks. Instead, they engaged in a failed attempt to convey the false impression that Mr. DePerno and I didn’t know what we were talking about.|
Furthermore, I believe that the Committee should be compelled to answer the following questions:
Are you aware that there is evidence of this device communicating with foreign servers (Taiwan, Germany) during the election cycle?
Does it concern you that there is evidence of foreign communications with our election system?
Are you aware that all of our county election systems have network connections to the state election management system?
Are you aware that all of our county election systems have network connections with precinct voting machines across the each county?
Are you aware of the fact that if any one of these networked voting machines are compromised, the chain of custody regarding our elections is compromised?
|EMS is not connected to the tabulators. At no time would this connection or activity have had an impact on the tabulators.||How did the Committee verify that the EMS was not connected to the tabulators? Nothing short of a forensic audit would indicate if there was an impact on the tabulators. Lax security credentials were consistently evident enabling remote users to perform “cleanup” duty on logs. Professional forensic audits are designed to investigate such matters. Instead of providing the data needed to provide a thorough forensic review, Antrim County failed to produce a long list of artifacts critical to the investigation.|
|More relevant, it could not have changed the tabulator slips, shown in the second chart, line one.||It has been proven that tabulator slips can be changed to suit desired election results. Vote tallies and timestamps can be changed while leaving no trace (See “Hacking Democracy” – Antrim Style).|
Operating Issues with Tabulators and Precinct Computers
|The Committee interviewed, under oath, the CEO of Dominion Voting Systems and the vice president of systems security & chief information security officer from ES&S. Hart InterCivic submitted written testimony. Despite many public denunciations of their collective testimony as inaccurate, no individual has provided any evidence to the Committee of such perjury or has filed any action in a court of law asserting such.|
Mr. Polous explained in detail how the operations of the Dominion machines are not compatible with the various theories being promoted, and that any of the accusations regarding counting ballots multiple times or scanning surplus ballots would easily be uncovered due to the poll books being unbalanced.
|Mr. Poulus said, “A simple review of ballots is insufficient to determine whether or not Ranked Choice Voting module was active.”|
• One requires the demonstration that the chain of custody pertaining to all ballots has been maintained prior to reviewing the ballots including validation of the security of upstream links in the chain of custody such as the poll books and qualified voter file as well as the downstream link to the vote tally. If one can be assured that the ballots to be counted have been cast by real voters on real ballots, then one can validate the tabulator accuracy at the time a recount is performed. This recount can then be compared against reports generated by the tabulators on election day. To date, there have been four separate tabulations of the results in Antrim County. Not one of them has the same count.
Mr. Poulus said, “None of Antrim’s tabulators were connected to the internet. Antrim county does not have modems. They do not use modems.”
• Dominion provided Antrim County with a quote for 17 modems ostensibly for precincts and another five for the transmission of the results. While I was not present in Antrim County to investigate any physical evidence of internet connectivity, it would be logical to assume that the modems were procured to connect Dominion voting systems to the internet or whatever euphemism they are using for a “secure remote connection”.
• Dominion provided an email to Antrim County officials noting issues with internet connection during the Primary election. The committee dismissed this email without providing any way to see what the letter said. See for yourself at link above.
|Further, ballots that required auto-adjudication or duplication are accounted for in the poll books and create a computer log that is checked to prevent or detect double counts. Damaged ballots that require duplication are logged and could not be accidentally tabulated due to the damage that required the duplication.||This is a prime example of the Committee asserting how the election was supposed to work as opposed to how it did work. If a voter casts a ballot in-person at a voting precinct, scanner errors can be corrected by the voter. That is not possible for absentee ballots. In order to correct absentee ballot scanner errors, statute requires that members from both parties observe the adjudication of voter intent onto a new ballot. This adjudication is performed manually as a “spoil and duplicate” process or is automated via adjudication workstations. In both cases, the voter intent is relegated to the interpretation of a 3rd party. High error rates on scanners increase the likelihood of such adjudications. Only a forensic audit of election records could prove their statement to be accurate.|
|The early allegation of fractional voting was supported by a few photographs which appeared to be screen shots from computer screens running the Dominion software. The chair specifically called for this information during public testimony as its existence would have been a profound demonstration of proof. However, despite numerous, repeated requests from the chair and assurances from those making the allegation, no proof, whether by demonstration or verifiable citation, was ever offered to or obtained by the Committee.||Mr. Poulus said, “Michigan does not use Ranked Choice Voting. A simple review of Antrim’s ballots confirms this.”|
• Two affidavits contradict this assertion (ASOG Report and Halderman Report) plus a third cyber security expert (CyberNinjas) who examined Antrim County data observed the installation of Ranked Choice Voting module yet failed to mention it in his report. Two out of three asserted that they could find no evidence it was active, but the unredacted ASOG Report provides clear evidence that the Ranked Choice Voting Module was not only installed but active in Antrim County. The Committee chair was encouraged to pursue access to the unredacted report. He obviously did not pursue this recommendation. The ASOG report was redacted by Judge Kevin Elsenheimer on the basis of a false assertion by the AG representative relating to protecting Dominion source code from disclosure. The CyberNinja report clearly states that there was no source code among the data obtained from the available Antrim County hard drives. The illegitimate redaction of the ASOG report was but one example of how Dominion has used the threat of lawsuits to obstruct the release of information pertinent to election fraud investigations.
|Furthermore, and more importantly, there has been no evidence provided that such a purported connection led to alterations to machine programming, hardware, or the tabulated results or could have led to such changes.||Considering the fact that the Committee has to date failed to release the election data they subpoenaed from the cities of Livonia and Detroit, it is clear why this evidence has been difficult to come by. We are not magicians. Furthermore, this statement is demonstrably false. The documentaries Absolute Proof, Absolute Interference and Absolute 9-0 provide evidence that such connections resulted in changes to tabulated results.|
|Finally, logic and accuracy tests are conducted on each tabulator prior to the election to confirm that pre-election procedures were followed properly. During the postelection audits, clerks verify that those tests were performed and that the machines and their programming were not tampered with during the election.||The Committee failed to provide evidence that logic and accuracy tests had been performed. Furthermore, who verified that the permutations tested were sufficient to address all possible vote combinations? There was significant evidence provided of high tabulator error rates which indicates that not all permutations may have been tested. Even the expert witness hired by the Antrim County defense team, Prof J Alex Halderman, did not refute the high error rate, only the scope and implications of the high error rate. The Federal Election Commission has specified 1 error in 250,000 scans as an acceptable failure rate yet Antrim County experienced an error rate of 68%. In Detroit, we have an affidavit from a poll worker that Write-In ballots showed on precinct tape printouts yet no ballots showed write-in votes. This is indicative of a tabulator error. Furthermore, logic and accuracy tests mean nothing if they cannot prove that their machines were devoid of internet connection vulnerability between certification of the election equipment and the certification of the results. Any storage device including memory cards containing ballot configurations and vote allocation logic for the tabulators can be overwritten remotely.|
|Many theories and speculation regarding tabulators not at the TCF Center also include a component that necessitate an internet connection. It is particularly important to note that Dominion voting machines that are not part of an absentee voter counting board do not have built in modems or wireless internet. Reports to the contrary are false, with some falsely labeling non-Dominion machines as Dominion machines to make it appear as if they do have wireless internet capabilities. The secure cellular modems some clerks use to transmit the unofficial results to the county clerk are not even turned on or connected to the tabulators until after the official results are printed by the individual machine.||Once again, there are no references for their assertions regarding theories. |
Each of the 134 absentee voting counting boards featured an an electronic poll book captured. These electronic poll book were not installed on Dominion equipment. They were installed on commercial laptops. Laptops have wireless internet connectivity. In fact, I recall testimony that Detroit election officials admitted to connecting at least one of these poll book laptops to the internet in order to access the state QVF during election results processing. The presence of a “AV_Connect” Wi-Fi connection supports assertions that there were election systems able to connect wirelessly to the internet. In this light, one can either conclude that the Committee was confused when reviewing testimonials from others or they are deliberately attempting to discredit witnesses concerned with internet connectivity at the TCF Center.
Furthermore, there is credible evidence that contradicts the assertion that cellular modems are not even turned on or connected to the tabulators until after the official results are printed. This is another example of the Committee asserting something that SHOULD be as fact without any evidence to assert that it actually DID happen. A Dominion training video in Wayne County discusses policy regarding internet connectivity indicating that election equipment would be connected to the internet prior to the closure of the polls (See Dominion Voting Machine Cellular Modem Connection Capabilities for more information). A forensic audit is necessary to see if and when external network connections were activated.
|It is true that every tabulator was connected to a local area network (LAN), which would create the same icon on a computer screen indicating a network connection as is shown by an internet accessible network. This may be a source of some of the confusion. Computers at the central control center, which were not connected to each precinct’s LAN, were connected to a network that was connected to the internet, which may have also contributed to the confusion. Regardless, no evidence has been offered that the tabulators were connected beyond each LAN, and, in fact, the results from the tabulators at the TCF Center were transmitted to the clerk’s office via flash drives, not electronic or cellular connection.||Confusion? What is confusing about computers networked together which included at least one computer connected to the internet? The Committee is attempting to be clever with their wording in an attempt to confuse readers. |
Election officials present at the TCF Center deliberately interfered with attempts to prove to all present that the computers were connected to the internet. All that was required was simply moving the mouse curser over the LAN connectivity icon. It would say explicitly “Connected to Internet”. This action would not have interfered with anything related to the election. Detroit Election Official David Nathan refused to do so when asked which amounts to obstruction of Poll Challenger duties punishable under MCL 168.734. So we are left to inferring an internet connection on the basis of my sworn affidavit coupled with the affidavit of Chris Thomas attesting to the connectivity of Central Data Station computers to the internet. It should be noted that the LAN Connectivity icon reverts to a globe icon over time if the computer is not connected to the internet. Every tabulator and adjudicator workstation at the TCF Center clearly displayed the LAN Connectivity icon when examined.
Even without an internet connection, it is important to point out that 172,000 ballots were still subject to manipulation by election officials at the Central Data Station. These officials were by design not subject to oversight by Poll Challengers.
It should be noted that the LAN Connectivity testified to via written affidavit has now been affirmed via video taken during TCF Walkthru.
|There is no link in the election process chain more susceptible to unprovable and un-refutable speculation and suspicion than those involving the invisible lines of code and panels of circuits. These vulnerabilities can include tampering with machine code on site, via cyber attack, or by malicious programming by the proprietors of the machines. However, this narrative is ignorant of multiple levels of the actual election process. Upon completion|
of the election, tabulators print the final results on paper. Clerks then connect a modem and transmit by secure, cellular connection or transfer by flash drive the unofficial results to the county clerk. County clerks then report these unofficial results both locally and to the secretary
of state. The secretary of state releases the unofficial results to media and their own page.
|Yes. The vulnerabilities for electronic voting systems are considerable. The fact remains that malware can be embedded in hardware, software or inserted/removed via network communications. That is why extraordinary safeguards must be taken to secure electronic voting systems. The Federal Election Assistance Commission specifies certification standards for software, but not for hardware. That means that, while there are at least superficial calls for software certification of election systems, there is no one even looking at hardware configurations. In other words, if it weren’t for the investigations made in the Antrim County election lawsuit, we never would have realized that hardware configurations used in our elections were connected to the internet by default (See Modem Chips Embedded in Voting System Computer Motherboards). |
The Committee did not even address the security implications of the discovery of SQL Server Management Studio on machines in Antrim County. Not only is this software not certified by the EAC, it is capable of changing election results without anyone knowing. The existence of this software should be sufficient grounds to decertify the Antrim County election and the elections of any other county featuring this software.
In the wake of the discovery of non-certified software capable of changing election results without a trace during Antrim County investigations, the 501c4 Election Integrity Fund initiated the following FOIA request to all 83 counties and the State of Michigan:
“Provide an audit of the software installations for all devices used for election or connected to these devices via network connections (e.g. ethernet, Wi-Fi, cell-based modem). Information provided should be consistent with that provided by BelArc Advisor tool.
Specify who installed software on each device
Specify when each installation was performed
Specify the source of the software installed (e.g. disk, flash drive, download)
Provide device-specific event logs in support of above assertions
Provide a copy of the written instructions for reporting election results provided to you
Provide the support number or email address you were to contact if you had any problems with the reporting of your election results
Provide Public Accuracy Test matrix for each precinct (see figure below)
Provide Tabulator Program Testing and Security Certification for each precinct (see figure below)
NOTE: Requests apply to ALL devices across all precincts, townships, cities and county.“
Not a single location complied with the FOIA request. Sadly, many who did respond had no idea what was being asked for which underscores the issue with deploying vulnerable systems to workers who don’t understand their vulnerabilities.
And we haven’t even began to address vulnerabilities due to network connections which have been dismissed by the Committee.
Unfortunately, the Committee, like many election officials across the state, refuse to take these security risks seriously. The report continues to push the narrative around how elections SHOULD operate as opposed to providing any substantive evidence as to how they actually DID operate. The only way to determine how the elections were actually executed is to conduct a forensic audit that includes electronic voting system deep dives.
|Clarity, a Spanish based company, also takes in these unofficial results from the county or the state. This company, which is based in Spain and has servers in Europe, makes the unofficial results available to multiple users, especially media subscribers who utilize the unofficial results in their election night prognostications. Scytl and others are companies that provide similar services. All of these activities, especially due to media inquiries, constitute a significant explanation for much of the cyber activity across the country and the globe on election night.||The Committee fails to understand why the transmission of unofficial election results overseas is an issue. In fact the transmission of unofficial election results anywhere is an issue. Why? The broadcast of unofficial results enables bad actors to project voter turnout and vote tallies. If such projections differ significantly from pre-election projections, they now have the information necessary to order additional ballots to be stuffed into election returns before records are sealed for boards of canvassers. See Election Process Audit Map: Good Stuff and Bad Stuff for insights into how this election fraud might be executed.|
|The presence of IP addresses do not prove votes were altered or programming was hacked. Servers have nothing to do with regular tabulators during the election. If the losing party had been so confident of any of these cyber attack theories or software-based vote switching, simply asking for several hand recounts or re-tabulations in the various precincts would have demonstrated a genuine hack had happened and that there was necessity for additional recounts and investigations.||The Central Data Station at the TCF Center featured an installation of the Dominion Election Management System which features a server capturing election data for the 503 precincts in the Detroit Absentee Voting Counting Board. There was physical evidence that the Central Data Station computers were connected via ethernet connections to tabulators and adjudicators (See Affidavit and TCF Walkthru).|
|Further, the graphics and charts in various videos claim very specific access and vote count changes in specific counties across Michigan but do not provide any references or evidence to demonstrate how that information was acquired. Some of the highly out-of-balance precincts at consolidated Absentee Voter Counting Boards (AVCB) were likely from mistakes made with the high-speed tabulators, something that several citizens swore to have witnessed in affidavits and other testimony.||If the Committee reach out to any of the producers of the referenced videos, I am unaware of any such communications. This would indicate that they were not truly serious about investigating the source of this significant evidence.|
The scenario painted as a “likely” explanation for mistakes at tabulators is pure speculation. The Committee fails to provide any of the “references or evidence” for which they chastise those who assert election fraud. Only a true forensic audit would reveal what scenario truly occurred.
|Technically, the imbalances that remain after the canvass could exist due to fraudulent activity. Unbalanced precincts are unfortunate and are something that should be addressed in the future.|
However, the unbalanced precincts in Michigan counties were marginal and, in no way, would have impacted the outcome of the Presidential election.
|In Wayne County, it was clear to Poll Challengers witnessing activities at the Wayne County Board of Canvassers that last minute Poll Book updates were inserted the day before the all important certification vote for Wayne County to help “balance” election records (See Affidavit and Page 60 of The Case for Decertification of Michigan Election Results). Prior to this poll book update, Detroit precincts were observed to be out of balance by as many as 600 votes. After the fortuitous poll book update? Max out of balance was only 29. Even then, 71% of the precincts in Detroit alone were out of balance. In this light, it is entirely plausible that the true nature of unbalanced precincts is anything but “marginal”.|
Signature Verification Process
|The Committee was made aware of claims that election workers at the TCF Center in downtown Detroit were instructed to not match signatures on envelopes and furthermore were instructed to “pre-date” the received date of absentee ballots.|
As for the “pre-dating” allegation, Detroit Senior Election Advisor Chris Thomas explained this date field is necessary for processing the ballot. Without the voter present, there is no way to have that date, which was recorded into the QVF by the official who took the same day registration at another location.
|The testimony of Poll Worker Jesse Jacobs contradicts the assertions made by Chris Thomas who would clearly benefit from the dismissal of her claims. In her testimony, Mrs. Jacobs, at considerable personal risk to herself and her family, testified that she was ordered to “improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive date that were not in the QVF” (Violation of MCL 168.765). She also was “instructed not to look at any of the signatures on the absentee ballots” (Violation of MCL 168.765). She was also instructed “not to validate any ballots and not to look for any deficiencies in the ballots” (Violation of MCL 168.765).|
Jurisdictions Reporting More Than 100% Voter Turnout
|Claims were false in Oneida Township, Zeeland Township, Spring Lake Township, Gladwin Township, Summit Township, and Detroit||Difficult to refute since no source was provided as to who asserted such turnouts and on what basis. Nor was any information provided that would support the report’s own assertions as to voter turnout percentages.|
Furthermore, a more professional investigation of voter turnout data prepared by Dr. Doug Frank validates the assertion that there were indeed more actual voters than registered voters when one goes beyond an aggregate examination of voter turnout percentage and performs a more granular investigation by age groups. You can view Dr. Frank’s analysis as Exhibit 4 of the Antrim County lawsuit that the MI SoS and AG sought to dismiss.
Absentee Ballots Tabulated Multiple Times
|If ballots were counted multiple times, this would have created a significant disparity in the official pollbook.||The Committee unwittingly validates the importance of the chain of custody when it comes to vote tallies. In Wayne County, it was clear to Poll Challengers witnessing activities at the Wayne County Board of Canvassers that last minute Poll Book updates were inserted the day before the all important certification vote for Wayne County (See Affidavit and Page 60 of The Case for Decertification of Michigan Election Results). Prior to this poll book update, Detroit precincts were observed to be out of balance by as many as 600 votes. After the fortuitous poll book update? Max out of balance was only 29. In this environment, it is entirely possible to count a given ballot multiple times and then cover their trail by updating the poll book with a list of voters who had not voted in the election. You see, a poll book not only includes a list of people who did vote. It also includes a list of those who did not vote. A list of people who did not vote is very convenient if you need to play e-Harmony.com with your poll book vote count and ballot count. This is why a forensic audit is critical. Recounts do not indicate which ballots are fake or which voters are fake.|
Thousands of Ballots “Dumped” at the TCF Center on Election Night/The Next Morning
|This theory, like many of the other theories proposed as evidence of fraud, does not constitute actual evidence on its own. Those drawing such conclusions in their affidavits and testimony were asked to provide proof that something illegal actually occurred but no proof that ballots were fraudulent was provided or found by the Committee in testimony or in subpoenaed records. However, this situation does raise issues with the delayed and cumbersome process of obtaining absentee ballots from drop boxes on election night, when many other activities and processes are also ongoing.||I personally witnessed the delivery of ballots to the TCF Center in Detroit around 3:30am on November 4, 2020. See for yourself in the surveillance video that had to be FOIA’d by The Gateway Pundit. The ballots were unsecured in open mail bins. Election officials claim that the ballots came from the Detroit City Clerk’s office but no evidence has yet to be provided in support of this assertion. These ballots were also accompanied by “supplemental” paper poll books despite the counting boards already using electronic poll books to validate the chain of custody for the ballots. Under Michigan law (MCL 168.735), there is only supposed to be ONE poll book instance during an election cycle. By my count, at least four different versions of poll books were in play in Detroit during the 2020 election.|
Vote Totals Abnormal Compared to Past Presidential Election and Other Vote Count Irregularities
|the data suggests that there was no anomalous number of votes cast solely for the President, either in Wayne County or statewide||Data compared 2020 results to 2016 results presumably under the assumption that the 2016 results were free of election fraud. The 2016 results were themselves suspect enough for Presidential candidate Jill Stein to call for a recount.|
|Large spikes in the vote count are not necessarily unexplainable or unusual. They do not alone constitute evidence of fraud and can be reasonably expected. ||No evidence has been provided to corroborate their “theory”. In fact, they acknowledge that they “can only speculate” on the causes of spikes. A forensic audit is needed to discern the causes of these spikes. The Committee subpoenaed data from the City of Detroit that could reveal explanations for these spikes but has noticeably refused to release this data to the public.|
|Large precincts, particularly with the highest absentee voter turn out ever, took much longer to complete and then reported all their results at once.||All precincts are, by law (MCL 168.658), limited to 2,999 active registered electors. There is no such thing as a “large precinct”. Many election officials attempt to make the case that counting ballots in large counties like Wayne County are more difficult than in a less populous county such as Antrim. Counties are made of municipalities. Municipalities are made of precincts. Precincts are the fundamental building blocks of elections. They don’t vary significantly in size anywhere in the state.|
|Further complicating this issue is that the absentee voter ballots counted at a consolidated counting board had to be merged with the votes submitted on Election Day at the corresponding, in- person voting precincts. This makes the spike larger than just the final count from the AVCB.||As with other assertions made in the report, the Committee poses an interesting theory that has not been validated by any data. It is beyond hypocritical to castigate those providing evidence of election fraud for not providing additional evidence in support of their concerns while providing even less information in support of their own theories. This is particularly troublesome when one observes that the Committee had the authority to obtain the information needed to validate their theory. They seem, however, to have lacked the will to obtain this information. In fact, it is becoming clear that their subpoenas for election data in Livonia and Detroit were simply examples of them going through the motions of an investigation without any serious intent of actually performing a professional investigation. In support of this assertion, the Committee has yet to receive all of the data which they subpoenaed…over six months beyond the January 12, 2021 due date for this data. Then to hide this and other facts, they required legislators interested in seeing this data to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.|
|No evidence has been presented to refute this as the legitimate reason for the dramatic jumps in vote counts seen in Michigan.||It is frustrating to note that the Committee has the subpoena authority needed to ascertain the data needed to prove or disprove assertions regarding the vote jumps. They have chosen not to pursue this information. To date, attempts by everyday citizens to access the data necessary to support such an audit have been prevented via threats of lawsuits, non-disclosure agreements or FOIA-obstruction. Citizens at large have limited access to election records. The subpoena authority of the Michigan Legislature under MCL 4.101, however, is not so limited. Only a forensic audit would validate their theory or the theory of those who assert otherwise. The legislature has the authority to initiate such an audit should there be the will.|
|Regardless, the Committee can only speculate on this because the author of the referenced report cannot provide sources that the Committee can pursue. Without provision of a source to investigate from the author, and as no confirmation of these numbers was provided nor can be ascertained, the Committee does not believe a wide-ranging, blanket allowance to search materials is justifiable or responsible, particularly in light of the extent of the post-election state audit performed and the of lack red flags from the final results in Detroit or Wayne County.||You’ve got to hand it to the Committee, it takes quite a bit of courage to call out providers of evidence for not providing their sources in a report that failed to call out the vast majority of the sources for its assertions. As a point of fact, the source of the information was provided to the Committee Chair via email on December 7, 2020 (six days after committee hearing). It is unclear whether or not the Committee actually took the time to reach out to the source of the data provided, Russ Ramsland. My email received no response or request for contact information for Russ Ramsland which I would have gladly provided. Either the Committee is completely incompetent as investigators or they are simply “going through the motions” of an investigation.|
|However, the external, detachable modem does provide a reassuring and genuine physical barrier to cyber attacks during the voting process.||An “external, detachable modem” only provides reassurance if a forensic examination of computer logs confirms that there were no internet-based communications with the voting machines. If the Committee truly adhered to their logic regarding detachable modems, the fact that a 4G wireless modem was installed on the motherboard of a voting system in Michigan should be quite concerning (See Modem Chips Embedded in Voting System Computer Motherboards).|
|Testimony and allegations of ballot harvesting were made, although no evidence of such was presented. Ballot harvesting has been caught at times in the past, but none was in this election. It is worth noting that ballot harvesting, while illegal due to its vulnerability to fraud, is not necessarily indicative of fraudulent voting.||They didn’t look very hard for evidence of ballot harvesting. See MI Affidavit 26 or Ballot Harvesting. There is more where that came from.|
|Testimony and reports of illegal votes, out of state votes, non-residents voting, and deceased voters are prolific, and the numbers included are substantial and compelling. However, no source or reliable method for determining these numbers is presented. The Committee finds these postulations strain credulity and are simply preposterous. The Committee also notes this theory would directly conflict with the idea the machines were tampered with to miscount the ballots.||A solid understanding of the concept of the election record Chain of Custody is critical in order to understand why such claims are important and also why they do NOT conflict with the “idea the machines were tampered with”. Fake voters in the Qualified Voter File, result in fake voters in the Poll Books. Fake voters in the poll books enable fake votes to be cast. The number of fake votes needed can be calculated from the desired vote margin and the number of votes cast. This chain can be executed forwards or backwards. This means that machines can be tampered with to induce high error rates which enable manual or automated adjudication of the number of ballots needed to hit projected vote tallies. Fraudulent ballot counts must then be reconciled with fraudulent voters in electronic poll books and ultimately the qualified voter file. Network connectivity enables all electronic election artifacts to be kept relatively in sync whether this fraud chain is executed forwards or backwards. Lax security around the chain of custody as evidenced in Wayne County (See Affidavit and Page 60 of The Case for Decertification of Michigan Election Results) can then be used as an excuse to synchronize physical records such as ballots or printed poll books.|
|The context in the email, to make electronically transmitting the results after the election with the attachable modem function better, makes the instruction to turn off transmitting the image a reasonable instruction when coupled with there being no law in Michigan to save the images.||There may be no state law (yet), but there is a federal law that prohibits the destruction of election records (See 52 Sect 20702 Records Destruction). Furthermore, these images would be required to demonstrate to Boards of Canvassers that the election record chain of custody was maintained as these images NOT the ballots are the direct connection to the vote tallies represented in the statement of votes certified by canvassers.|
|Frequent demands to decertify all or a portion of the vote are accompanied by high sounding language regarding the “chain of custody.” This verbiage evokes images of evidence utilized in trials, such as sealed envelopes and locked evidence rooms with sign-out sheets. However, investigating the claims regarding problems with the chain of custody usually finds highlights about the handling and transmission of the unofficial vote counts and the computer systems used to handle them. While concerns about these systems may be justified, it is incredibly misleading and irresponsible to imply this holds any danger to the official vote counts, the tabulators, or the ballots themselves. Similarly, unfair allegations have been leveled against the secretary of state and county and local clerks regarding the instruction to, and deletion of, e-poll book data.||The report consistently repeats the flawed assertion that the integrity of the election can be demonstrated simply by running ballots through the tabulator. Using their logic, if the tabulation yields the same results as the tape printouts from election day, then all is good. No wonder they equate recounting ballots with an audit. Anyone who understands how elections are conducted, however, knows that the integrity of any election is dependent upon much, much more than a successful tabulation of the ballots at hand. In order to demonstrate the integrity of an election, it is critical that the chain of custody for election materials is maintained. That is why it is a federal felony to destroy election records within 22 months of an election (See 52 Sect 20701 Records Retention and 52 Sect 20702 Records Destruction). Yet, the report asserts that insisting that election officials demonstrate that the chain of custody has been secured is “incredibly misleading, demeaning, and irresponsible.” I would assert that the exact opposite of this is true. Fraudulent voters in the Qualified Voter File result in fraudulent voters in Poll Books. Fraudulent voters in Poll Books results in fraudulent ballots being issued. Fraudulent ballots being issued results in fraudulent election results. Not a difficult concept to grasp for most reasonable observers. Demonstration of the integrity of the chain of custody is an important factor in the call by citizens for a forensic audit. The report’s dismissal of the importance of the chain of custody demonstrates why the pursuit of a forensic audit has been dismissed by members of the Michigan Senate. Their failure to understand the importance of the chain of custody is a serious issue.|
|Many of the allegations simply utilize semantics and the confusing, technical nature of elections to drive up doubt. Claims such as “fake birthdays,” “unsupervised ballot duplication,” “system manuals explicitly refer to internet and ethernet connectivity,” and “unsecured and illegal ballot boxes” are just a sampling of the terminologies used.||Meanwhile, people such as myself are treated to an endless parade of #FakeNews stating our significant body of election fraud evidence is “Unsubstantiated”, “De-bunked”, “Confused”, or “Hearsay”. Give me a break.|
The fact remains that claims such as “fake birthdays”, “unsupervised ballot duplication”, “system manuals explicitly refer to internet and ethernet connectivity,” and “unsecured and illegal ballot boxes” are legitimate explanations of the referenced subject matter. The “legitimate explanations” explained elsewhere in their report do not address the core issues behind the use of these terms.
|The birthday issue is explained elsewhere in this report and involves same day registrations on Election Day.||The Committee attempts to sweep away “birthday issue” as an issue with same day voter registrations. The fact remains, if you do not know a voter’s birthday, how did you verify that they met the voting age requirement? You don’t. Therefore a ballot never should have been issued to them. Detroit in particular has a long history of counting “provisional ballots” due in large part to false, politically-motivated narratives by Democrats over the years stating that Republicans seek to deny them the right to vote.|
|“Unsupervised ballot duplication” is referring to times challengers were unable to watch or were prevented from watching (which were not legal actions) but is misleading because the bipartisan election inspectors/workers were still watching and verifying each other’s work.||First of all, I find it noteworthy that, although the committee recognized that Poll Challenger interference was “not legal”, they failed to call for an Attorney General investigation to hold those guilty of such infractions accountable. In fact, I have evidence (much of which had been presented to the Committee) in support of 15 state statutes and 3 federal statutes having been violated in the November 2020 election (See Election Fraud Evidence Primer) yet there are no calls for Attorney General investigations into these matters. Instead, the Committee chose to direct the Attorney General to investigate matters for which there is no supporting evidence in order to satisfy petty personal vendettas. |
Second of all, there was clear evidence that the assertion made by the Committee that “bipartisan election inspectors/workers were still watching and verifying each others’ work” was patently false particularly at the TCF Center in Detroit.
See the following affidavits refuting this assertion:
E-2 Republicans Who Applied to Work at Detroit AVCB
Application to be Poll Worker not pursued
E-3 Detroit Poll Worker Party Affiliations
E-10 Detroit Poll Inspector
MI Affidavit 2
MI Affidavit 3
MI Affidavit 6 Ballots Not Verified
MI Affidavit 14 Political Bias
MI Affidavit 21 Adjudication Bias
MI Affidavit 24
MI Affidavit 26
MI Affidavit 30
Ballots Not Verified
Republican Poll Worker Denied
Third of all, unsupervised ballot duplication was a serious issue as indicated in the following materials:
Pizza boxes cover windows of TCF Center during Military Ballot processing
Military ballot duplication fraud
Interference with duplication oversight
Significant growth in ballots requiring duplication
|“System manuals” refer to connectivity because the machines are specifically designed to be connected to transmit the unofficial results and to be connected for other functions – this is not proof they were connected during tabulation.||“System manuals” may not be proof that the machines were “connected during tabulation”, but it sure as heck should demand proof that they were not connected during tabulation. The whole notion that election integrity is only at risk if devices are connected during tabulation is nonsensical in any case. In order to secure any election network, election officials need to make sure that there is no risk of connection between electronic voting systems and non-certified electronic systems at ANY time between the certification of the electronic voting systems and the final certification of the election results. In any case, there was significant proof provided to the Committee that the election equipment WAS connected during tabulation of election results (See Dominion Training Video, TCF Walkthru, MI Affidavit , Chris Thomas Internet Connectivity Statement in Case 20-014780-AW).|
|“Unsecured and illegal ballot boxes” refers to the transporting of absentee ballots to the counting board in postal trays. Sealed ballots have never been considered to need to be in a secured and approved container because the envelops are still sealed.||Unsecured ballot containers are serious infractions that enable ballot stuffing fraud. Ballots or ballots in envelopes placed in non secure containers violate the chain of custody whether the ballots are shipped from the Detroit Elections Bureau after processing or the ballots are left unsecured on the floor of the Detroit AVCB. See Non-approved ballot containers, Unsecured Ballot Deliveries, Ballot Harvesting, Ballots not in sealed containers|
|Several entities have undertaken to conduct audits, sometimes referring to their efforts as “forensic audits.” One of these is detailed earlier in this report, particularly in Finding 5.||Claims that an audit of the Antrim County election results has been conducted are false (See MI SoS Official Caught on Video, Antrim County Election: Audit or No Audit? and Risk-Limited Audits).|
Pre-Election Audit checklist was not executed in all 83 counties. No evidence has been provided to assert that it has been conducted in even ONE county. There have been zero forensic audits of 2020 election results in Michigan. Even the 250 “Risk-Limiting Audits” (RLA) advertised by the MI SoS only counted 18,000 ballots so their RLA’s aren’t even a “recount”. That leaves their RLA narrative as merely a talking point for complicit media outlets.
|Much has been made by several persons that the hand recount in Antrim County was not truly an audit. This is, and was, admitted by the secretary of state’s office as true in that it was not a precinct audit, but a risk-limiting audit with a risk limit of zero, because all of the ballots were recounted and not just a sample.||The MI SoS is clearly taking liberty with the definition of an audit by attempting to label a recount as an audit. The reason for her logic gymnastics is clear. The MI Constitution guarantees MI citizens the right to an “audit”. She wants to give citizens the false impression that their constitutional rights were satisfied. The problem with that is that an audit by any objective standard for an audit was not conducted. She conducted “recounts” not “audits”. See for yourself that an “audit” was not conducted in Antrim County (See MI SoS Official Caught on Video).|
|Furthermore, this does not diminish the profound value of hand recounting every ballot and race in the county as evidence against fraud or other illicitness. However, the actual, mandated audit detailed below was eventually conducted in Antrim County as it was in all Michigan counties.||What is the “profound value” of hand recounting every ballot if we cannot be certain that the ballots which are counted are real ballots cast by real voters? Chain of custody matters. The MI Department of State Bureau of Elections Post-Election Audit Manual Checklist was shared in the report but that is not evidence that the checklist was actually followed. No such evidence was provided. Furthermore, the “checklist” is not of sufficient rigor to determine whether or not the election record chain of custody was maintained even if the checklist were followed.|
|The Committee concludes these audits are far from the worthless exercises they have been castigated as being||The only value demonstrated by the audits was political in nature. It provided the Michigan Secretary of State and her accomplices in the MI Legislature with the talking point that “an audit had been conducted” which could be parroted by complicit media outlets. True journalists would note as was noted by Assistant AG Erik Grill during oral arguments for the Antrim County election lawsuit that there was no audit performed in Antrim County.|
The report clearly was designed to push the narrative of “no election fraud” rather than pursue an honest investigation of the evidence asserted by firsthand affiants and other technical experts.
The committee report featured recommendations at the end of each Issues and Allegations section.
|The Committee recommends county clerks be given the ability to assist in removing deceased voters from the Qualified Voter File (QVF).||Nothing prevents them today from providing local clerks a list of deceased voters.|
|The Committee also recommends the secretary of state research and pursue methods, including statutory changes, that would prevent and identify those voting in multiple states.||Not clear if Michigan Secretary of State has even taken steps to prevent multiple votes within the State of Michigan. Voters are not given a unique voter ID. The same voter can have multiple voter ID’s in the Qualified Voter File. Database management of the QVF is sloppy at best.|
|Therefore, the Committee recommends the Michigan secretary of state discontinue the practice of mailing out unsolicited applications.||She never had that authority.|
|The Committee also recommends only the current QVF being utilized by the state or locals when making mailings to registered voters of any nature.||Unclear what is meant by the “current QVF”.|
|Additional training and clear instructions to caretakers or facility staff ought to be provided in such circumstances to clarify how and when such voting assistance is appropriate.||Training is the primary responsibility of the MI Secretary of State.|
|The Committee also recommends pre-filled out applications from any source be disallowed as well.||Agreed, but this is common practice amongst Republicans and Democrats and will be difficult to receive sufficient support from legislators.|
|Testimony was also shared that boxes disallowed by the Wayne County Board of Canvassers and labeled to not be used were still being used on Election Day. This is not acceptable, and the Committee asks the secretary of state or the attorney general to investigate who is responsible for this serious breach.||Nice to see the Committee drawing the line somewhere on matters pertinent to the chain of custody.|
|The saving of ballot images so the ballots can be publicly examined by digital means may be an issue Michigan should consider. Other states are doing this with success.|
The Committee finds insisting this is evidence of a cover up, “Destruction of election artifacts prior to end of 22-month archival requirement,” is incredibly misleading, demeaning, and irresponsible.
|Ballot images are election records and therefore subject to 52 Sect 20701 Records Retention and 52 Sect 20702 Records Destruction. Their preservation is not “optional” as suggested by the Committee. These images are key records in the chain of custody for the election.|
|The Committee recommends this practice be made more secure with manifests and a record of custody, but it is wrong to accuse anyone of violating the law that was written to address open ballots, not those in sealed envelopes.||There is a major hole in Michigan election law at present in that the maintenance of the chain of custody is not explicitly mandated in statute with commensurate penalties for violations. Having said this, the purpose of canvassers per the Michigan Bureau of Elections Boards of County Canvassers Manual is to “verify the proper completion of records related to the election at hand”. It is reasonable to assume that this responsibility includes a demonstration that the integrity of the election record chain of custody has been maintained prior to certifying any election.|
|The presence of blank ballots also provides significant confusion, despite being necessary for the duplication of military ballots and damaged absentee voter ballots. It is noteworthy that attempting to utilize these ballots for any significant level of fraud would require perfectly matching precincts to voters, manipulating poll books with fake dates for requests and receipts of the ballots, voter’s signatures, and the clerk’s signature and time stamp.||There should be a comprehensive accounting for all ballots printed in support of a given election cycle. There is no evidence that most election jurisdictions maintained such logs.|
Contrary to their assertion, there is no requirement for perfectly matching precincts to anything. Remember, Detroit certified their vote with 71% of their absentee precincts unbalanced and still received a “pass”. Furthermore, evidence of fake dates and disregard for voter signatures have already been presented (See testimony of Poll Worker Jesse Jacobs).
|One witness testified that none of the military ballots at her table being duplicated were for President Trump. However, upon questioning, the witness recounted she only witnessed a few dozen ballots. This is a very reasonable outcome given the overall performance of the candidates in these precincts and the amount witnessed, which is not statistically significant.||Please note that NONE of the military ballots witnessed by a poll challenger were for President Trump, who was supported by 60% of military in an October 2020 poll. Since the witness was only able to see a “few dozen” ballots, however, Senators McBroom, Theis, and Bizon concluded that 100% of a “few dozen” was not “statistically significant”. Well, don’t you think that a “few dozen” fraudulent ballots in precincts ranging from 500-1500 votes might just skew the “overall performance of the candidates in these precincts”? If it weren’t for the locked doors barring additional poll challengers such as myself from re-entering and pizza boxes over the windows at the TCF Center during the counting of military ballots, perhaps additional poll challengers would have been able to witness a more “statistically significant” ballot sample.|
|The Committee recommends providing live video feed and recordings of the audit procedures. The public should have access to view the audit in person when possible and results should be posted online. The Committee also recommends that the Legislature fulfill the commitment of Proposal 2018-3 to guarantee an audit upon request of any elector.||Live video of December 17 “Audit” was taken (See MI SoS Official Caught on Video). It was clear that the “Audit” was simply a recount.|
I stated earlier that the same legislators who are denying the existence of election fraud are now proposing legislation to address election fraud. You can see my review of this proposed legislation in my post entitled Michigan Election Reform Legislation.
I believe that it is clear to most reasonable observers that the MI Senate Oversight Committee Report on the November 2020 Election was devoid of substantive logic and reasoning. In many respects, it is simply a cover-up for what really happened during the 2020 election cycle in Michigan. Their statement that there was “no evidence of widespread or systemic fraud” was pre-fabricated to promote headlines by those complicit with their cover-up. The lack of rigor evident in their report should be sufficient in support of this conclusion, but I believe that we have provided significantly more evidence than that in our #BigTruth assertions and associated references.
Now that you have had an opportunity to review, as Paul Harvey used to say, “the rest of the story”, let’s revisit the “Conclusion” made by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee.
“The Committee can confidently assert that it has been thorough in examination of numerousConclusion cited in MI Senate Oversight Committee Report on the November 2020 Election
allegations of unlawful actions, improper procedures, fraud, vote theft, or any other description
which would cause citizens to doubt the integrity of Michigan’s 2020 election results. Our clear
finding is that citizens should be confident the results represent the true results of the ballots cast
by the people of Michigan. The Committee strongly recommends citizens use a critical eye and
ear toward those who have pushed demonstrably false theories for their own personal gain. We
also conclude citizens should demand reasonable updates and reforms to close real vulnerabilities
and unlawful activities that caused much of the doubt and questionability to flourish and could, if
unchecked, be responsible for serious and disastrous fraud or confusion in the future.
Further, we commend the innumerable clerks, canvassers, staff, workers, and volunteers across
Michigan that make the enormous complexity of elections operate so smoothly, so often. The
complexity of the work and the dedication we discovered are astounding and worthy of our sincerest
appreciation. We also commend the diligent citizens that took time to report problems and concerns
they saw because they want and value fair and free elections above party or personal gain. If all
citizens remain vigilant and involved, we will emerge stronger after any challenging time.”
Do you agree with their assessment now that you have seen “the rest of the story”?
If the members of the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee believe their report is the final word on the 2020 election, they are sadly mistaken. Our citizens are demanding a forensic audit of the 2020 election. Under the Michigan Constitution they have a right to such an audit. The Michigan Legislature has the authority to conduct an audit under the provisions of Article II Section 4 of the Michigan Constitution, MCL 168.31a, and MCL 4.101. It now comes down to a basic question. Will our legislators honor their oaths of office to support the Constitution or will they continue their push to suppress the exposure of election fraud?
Thankfully, there are other legislators in Michigan who are willing to take a more objective look at the evidence of election fraud.
“I am in receipt of evidence reflecting systematic election fraud in Michigan that occurred in the November 2020 election.”MI State Representative Daire Rendon
Clearly, while the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee was busy with the preparation of their “smoke and mirrors” report on the 2020 election, there were other legislators who took the allegations of election fraud much more seriously.
The truth about the 2020 election will be revealed. It is simply a matter of when.
- Election Fraud Evidence Primer
- Antrim County Election: Audit or No Audit?
- Michigan Election Reform Legislation
- The Case for Decertification of Michigan Election Results
- Election Chain of Custody
- 2020 Election Chain of Custody: World’s Worst Game of “Telephone”
Feel free to download and share the following memes with your networks.