November Memo Documented ‘Massive’ Election Integrity Problems in Atlanta


AP Photo/Mike Stewart

A contractor hired by Georgia Secretary of State to monitor
election counting in Fulton County wrote a 29-page memo back in November
“outlining the ‘massive’ election integrity failures and mismanagement that he
witnessed in the Atlanta-area’s election centers,” reports Just The News.

The bombshell report, constructed like a minute-by-minute
diary, cited a litany of high-risk problems such as the double-counting of votes,
insecure storage of ballots, possible violations of voter privacy, the
mysterious removal of election materials at a vote collection warehouse, and
the suspicious movement of “too many” ballots on Election Day.

“This seems like a massive chain of custody problem,” the
contractor, Carter Jones of  Seven Hill Strategies, warned in the
memo—which was delivered to Raffensperger’s office shortly after the election.
Despite his office being warned about these massive problems,
Raffensperger maintained that Georgia “had safe, secure, honest

Jones claims he observed absentee ballots arriving at
Atlanta’s State Farm Arena “in rolling bins 2k at a time,” and none of them
were in sealed and numbered boxes. Jones believed this to be highly suspicious,
said there were “too many ballots coming in for secure black ballot boxes.”

Another red flag raised by Jones was about temporary
workers hired to scan and count ballots after an election worker witnessed a
conversation during which one of the temps revealed his intention to “f**k s**t

Jones wrote that he needed to keep an eye on them.
“Perhaps this was a bad joke, but it was very poorly timed in the presence of a
poll watcher.”

Those two workers had been assigned to a “team confirming
and boxing ballots that have already been scanned to prepare them for later
audit” because “this is the place where they could do least to achieve their
declared objective.”

Jones wasn’t simply concerned about those two workers but
was also concerned about the vetting process of the agency that hired them,
called Happy Faces.

“What is Happy Faces doing to vet the people who they are
sending to make sure that they are not sending in people who do actually want
to ‘f*ck sh*t up?’” Jones asked.

Happy Faces did not respond to Just The News’ request for
comment before their report was published.

You can read the entire 29-page memo here.

John Solomon of Just The News spoke about this report on
Just The Truth with Jenna Ellis.

As Jenna Ellis pointed out, Georgia Secretary of State
Brad Raffensperger’s office most certainly knew of these issues even when
Raffensperger and other Georgia officials were saying unequivocally that the
2020 election in Georgia was above board. Raffensperger told Just The News he
still trusts the outcome of the election. However, considering there are
thousands of ballots potentially impacted by these irregularities, and Joe
Biden’s state-certified victory in the state was by fewer than 12,000 votes, it
is certainly plausible that there was results-changing fraud in Georgia.

Lawyer Bob Cheeley, who’s leading the Fulton County
audit, previously told Just the News that the evidence he’s
seen so far points to “election tabulation malpractice,” though experts and
state election officials disagree on whether the evidence is proof of fraud or
gross incompetence. They are, however, mostly united in the opinion that top
election supervisors in Fulton County should be removed. Raffensperger told
Just The News that he also supports the ouster of Fulton County’s top election


Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media
Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the
bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama,
and The Scandalous Presidency of
Barack Obama.



HUGE: Significant Election Irregularities
Exposed in Fulton County, Georgia


AP Photo/Ben Gray

Documents from Fulton County, Georgia, that were
submitted to state officials for the election audit “highlight significant
irregularities in the Atlanta area during last November’s voting, ranging from
identical vote tallies repeated multiple times to large batches of absentee
ballots that appear to be missing from the official ballot-scanning
records,” reports Just The News.

Thousands of ballots are potentially impacted by these
irregularities, suggesting they could be results-changing, as Joe Biden’s
state-certified victory in the state was by fewer than 12,000 votes.

Just The News reviewed memos that included “handwritten
tally sheets for all absentee ballots counted by the county as well as a
private report from a contractor hired by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
to monitor the Atlanta-area election process.”

report, which chronicled seven days of problems, recorded troubling behavior
like the mysterious removal of a suitcase of sensitive election data
known as polls pads, used to authenticate voters.

that Rick reprogramming poll pads earlier was setting up a new precinct for
SC11 because someone took the wrong suitcase but only took one,” the
contractor Seven Hills Strategy wrote late on Nov. 2, the night before Election
Day. “Seems to be a mystery who this person was –> Should have chain of
custody paperwork!! That means that a stranger just walked out with
sensitive election materials?”

contractor also observed that sensitive election materials were left on a
dock at a warehouse without supervision. “Several cases (including SC11) were
just left out on the loading dock outside the warehouse,” he wrote. “Thankfully
the seals were intact.”

Last month, Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian
Amero unsealed approximately 145,000 Fulton County absentee ballots from the
2020 election, approving them for an audit. The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reported at the time that the audit “cannot change the
election results, which were certified months ago and have already been
confirmed by multiple recounts. But the plaintiffs say an examination of
ballots would get to the bottom of what they see as suspicious activity by
election officials at State Farm Arena in November.”

Lawyer Bob Cheeley, who’s leading the audit, told Just
the News that the evidence he’s seen so far points to “election tabulation
malpractice,” though experts and state election officials disagree on whether
the evidence is proof of fraud or gross incompetence. They are, however, mostly
united in the opinion that top election supervisors in Fulton County should be

Just The News reviewed the Fulton County documents.

Among the problems those memos exposed:

than 100 batches of absentee ballots — each containing approximately 100
or more ballots — were assigned tracking numbers before being sent to one
of the five absentee vote-counting machines in Fulton County but
are not subsequently recorded in the handwritten logs showing which
batches were scanned and counted, raising concerns the ballots may be

than two dozen batches of absentee ballots were identified as having been
double-scanned on the tally sheets.

sequential batches of absentee votes each appeared with the exact same
vote count of 392 for Biden, 96 for President Donald Trump, and 3 for
Libertarian Jo Jorgensen, a count that state officials admitted was a
statistical impossibility.

control sheets for absentee ballot batches counted during the state’s
audit did not check a box indicating the ballot came from a secure
container, raising the possibility that ballots were stored insecurely or
that multiple batches of ballots were sealed in a single container.

Fulton County’s paperwork is also so “shoddy” that one state
official said it left open the possibility that fraud or misconduct occurred.
“An audit is only as good as the data that’s input, and in this case Fulton
County’s records are so problematic I’m not sure a reasonable person can trust
them,” the official said. “When you add in the reports of ballots magically
appearing under tables or being moved out of the counting center, there are
legitimate outstanding questions.”

Hypothetically speaking, if the Maricopa County, Ariz.,
audit and the Fulton County, Ga., audit both found enough fraud to change the
results in those states, Joe Biden’s lead in the Electoral College would shrink
to 279, and Trump’s Electoral College vote count would be 259—which would still
not be enough to alter the results of the election. Another audit may be coming
to Pennsylvania. If an audit finds results-changing fraud in Pennsylvania,
which the Trump campaign alleges happened, that would mean that Trump’s true
Electoral College vote total in 2020 would have been 279, to Joe Biden’s 259.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean that the 2020 election would be invalidated
and Trump would assume the presidency again.

“The election was lawless, six states allowed their
delegates to vote by false certifications, but the [Electoral College] process
happened,” explained Jenna Ellis, Trump’s former legal adviser. “The
Constitution has only one process for removal of a sitting president:
impeachment and conviction.”

“The best thing we can do as constitutionalists moving
forward is to ensure this utter disregard for states’ election laws never
happens again,” Ellis continued. “That’s why election integrity is the number
one issue facing America today.”


Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus
Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama,
and The Scandalous Presidency of
Barack Obama.


to Vote, Hard to Cheat

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds | Real Clear Politics

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

America’s voting system is in trouble. To do its job, it
needs to produce clear and trustworthy outcomes. It’s not enough to produce a
winner and loser. The losers have to believe that they lost fair and square,
and the public has to have enough confidence in the system to be skeptical when
sore losers claim fraud.

We don’t have that right now. To get there, we need paper
ballots, voter ID, and open counting – plus a bit of self-restraint among our
political class. Across much of America, voting is now done by computerized
devices. Computers have many advantages: They’re fast, they’re easy to program
(compared with changing printed ballots), and they produce rapid results that
can be quickly reported.

But they also have problems. One is that to trust a
computer, you have to trust the people who wrote its software, and everyone
else who may have had an opportunity to change that software. Devices that
connect to the Internet also raise the risk that people on the other side of
the world might change the software or the results.

Since 2020, such worries have often been dismissed as
right-wing propaganda, but just before the election USA Today published a
roundup of concerns about electronic voting that cited numerous computer
scientists. Conclusion: “All election systems are for the most part black
boxes: proprietary software and hardware jealously guarded by the handful of
companies selling them. But state reviews and court cases opening up DRE
[direct-recording electronic] systems of all makes and models for examination
have for years flagged problems.”

“The whole community of computer scientists is mystified
why election officials will not listen to experts about technology but will
listen to the vendors” selling and maintaining it, said computer scientist
Duncan Buell of the University of South Carolina.

Prior to the 2020 election, several prominent Democrats,
including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Ron Wyden, sent a letter
citing reports of vote-switching by machines manufactured by Dominion Systems.
They wrote: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and
demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and
not vulnerable to attack.”

They were right. Whether or not voting machines were
actually compromised, if people can’t trust them, they’re no good. So, we need
something more trustworthy. How do we do that?

Paper ballots, voter ID, and open counting, for a start.
Paper ballots aren’t fraud-proof, but they have several advantages over
electronic voting machines. First, they can’t be hacked by someone in Minsk or
Guangdong. To change a paper ballot, you need physical access.

What’s more, while you can change a vote tally in a
computer by flipping some bits – and bits are interchangeable – paper ballots
capture more information than simply votes for or against a candidate. Erasing
original votes is likely to leave some residue.

Creating large numbers of fake ballots is also harder.
Computer votes have no identifying characteristics. Details of handwriting, ink
color, and so on make each paper ballot unique. If you mass-produced completed
ballots, it would be much harder to make them look genuine; a Xerox machine
wouldn’t do the job.

Of course, votes need to be genuine. Voter fraud is
itself a species of voter suppression. If a fraudulent voter casts a ballot,
that ballot neutralizes the vote of a legitimate voter who chose a different

Many states (including mine, Tennessee) require a photo
ID to vote, as is the custom around the world. Voting by mail is frowned upon.
In Europe, 63% of countries ban mail-in ballots except for citizens living
abroad; another 22% ban mail-in ballots even for overseas citizens. Most
countries that allow mail-in ballots require people to show an ID to obtain
one. Some countries – including those where the U.S. has tried to boost
democracy, such as Afghanistan and Iraq – have gone further, marking voters
(remember the famous “purple finger” photos?) to prevent repeat voting.

The goal is simple: one person, one vote – with both
person and vote authenticated.

I’m not the only one to endorse paper ballots. After the
Democrats’ Iowa caucuses debacle last year, where a smartphone voting app
failed miserably, the New York Times ran a piece headlined “The only safe
election is a low-tech election.”

And as Sen. (now Vice President) Kamala Harris noted,
“Russia can’t hack a piece of paper.”

Of course, to be trusted, votes must also be counted
fairly. I recommend an open count at each polling place. Counting votes on the
spot would eliminate problems with ballots being “lost” on the way to a central
counting facility or being “discovered” in the trunk of a car during the count.
Everything should be done out in the open.

There should also be accountability for voting officials.
Votes lost or found? You lose your job. The responsibility is vital, and there
should be serious consequences for failure or dereliction.

Finally, we need a better political culture. Politicians
were once unwilling to challenge elections for fear of looking like sore
losers. That has changed. From the “hanging chad” recounts in 2000 to the
Diebold conspiracy theories of 2004 to claims of a “hacked election” in 2016 to
the ongoing hysteria about the 2020 election, charges of fraud, made by major
political figures, have become normal.

This may help fire up the base and generate media clicks,
but it’s destructive – and it undercuts the credibility of any genuine charges
of fraud that may emerge. True, reforming our political culture, which I regard
as deeply dysfunctional, may be asking too much. All the more reason to support
paper ballots, voter ID, and open counting on-site. Adopting these methods
would do much to promote political trust, and political legitimacy, in a nation
sorely in need of both.


Harlan Reynolds is Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of
Tennessee, and founder of the Instapundit political blog.


The Supreme Court’s Day of Reckoning is

By John Green |
American Thinker

Image: Pixabay

The election of 2020 is going to lay bare the dereliction
of the Supreme Court for all to see.  The COVD-19 pandemic gave numerous
state election officials an excuse to implement far-reaching changes to our
election processes.  Those changes obviously made our systems vulnerable
to fraud.  States implemented massive mail-in balloting at the same time
they relaxed ballot security and voter identification.  They even extended
the voting periods — to give the criminals more time to commit their fraud.

All these changes were unconstitutional.  The
Constitution clearly gives the various state legislatures the authority to
define how their elections will be conducted — not state election
officials.  Election officials are only empowered to conduct elections
within the rules set forth by their respective legislatures — except,
apparently, during a pandemic.  There must be a pandemic emanation hidden
in a penumbra
of the Constitution we didn’t know about.  Alarmed that the
changes would invite fraud, various organizations filed lawsuits to stop the

The Supreme Court declined to get involved.  It
ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because nobody had been harmed —
yet.  Since the election hadn’t happened, nobody was damaged, and there
was no case to be heard.  They were thinking like a civil court, not the
defenders of the Constitution they are sworn to be.  It was a cowardly way
to stay out of the political controversy.  Unfortunately, it also missed
an opportunity to defend the Constitution, which was clearly under attack.

After all the ad-hoc changes had been allowed to stand,
the election of 2020 saw an unprecedented number of irregularities — too many
to ignore.  Election observers were banned from observing the
election.  Counting stopped in the middle of the night and then restarted
after boxes of ballots were mysteriously found.  There are reports of
ballots being driven across state lines — by the truckload.  There were
even precincts that counted more ballots than there were registered
voters!  A number of states filed lawsuits against the states in which
these irregularities occurred.

Even though the Supreme Court is supposed to be the
arbiter of cases between states, it again refused to get involved.  They
ruled that Texas couldn’t sue Pennsylvania because Texans had their votes
accurately counted and therefore were not harmed by Pennsylvania. 
Apparently having the wrong president crammed down the throats of Texans is not
considered “harm.”  Given the flood of illegal aliens President Asterisk
has invited — and the crime that has accompanied them — would the justices
consider Texas “harmed” now?

A number of other cases were dropped because the court
considered them “moot.”  The election had been certified and nothing was
going to change that — hence no need to look at the evidence.  In the
immortal words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, “At this point what difference does
it make?”

The court seems to have three distinct voting blocs:

The oath keepers — These are the justices
that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even if it means
they’ll have to endure attacks.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make
up this bloc.

The jellyfish — These are the justices that
lack the spine to face controversy.  They’re more concerned about
defending the court than the Constitution.  Justices Roberts, Barrett, and
Kavanaugh make up this bloc.

The subversives — These are the justices
that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in
pursuit of social engineering.  Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make
up this bloc.

rumored that only three justices wanted to hear the 2020 election
lawsuits.  Does anyone doubt that it was those who comprise the “oath
keepers” bloc?

Chief Justice Roberts has placed his court in a trick-box.  By choosing to stay
out of the election controversy, John Roberts has bet the court’s reputation
that the mysteries of the election would remain mysteries.  As wagers go,
it was not a particularly smart one.  The election involved millions of
ballots, tens of thousands of election workers, and thousands of
counties.  If there was fraud, there is too much evidence, in too many
hands, to stay hidden.

the Democrats are scrambling to keep the truth hidden, but it’s slowly
coming out.  State-sponsored forensic audits, as well as private
investigations, are turning over the stones.  We’ll likely know the truth
by the end of this year.  If it turns out that the election was stolen,
the Supreme Court will be exposed as derelict, weak, and useless.  It will
all be because the jellyfish bloc doesn’t understand the psychology of bullies.

Supreme Court avoided involvement in the election because they wanted to stay
out of the controversy — they didn’t want to be bullied by the Democrats or
the media.  There are other possible motives, but they’re even more
disturbing.  Cowing to bullies will not avoid conflict.  Bullies prey
on weakness.  One has to either stand up to them eventually or accept
servitude.  Every kid on the playground has learned that lesson by the 8th grade.  Apparently,
John Roberts hasn’t.  Each time Chief Justice Roberts has acceded to the
bullies, he’s made the court’s future challenge greater.

that last-minute ad-hoc election changes were unconstitutional would have been
relatively straightforward — but the court didn’t.  Hearing the election
fraud evidence and adjudicating the result would have created a political
crap-storm — but it would have been the right thing to do.  What will
become of the court’s reputation if it becomes obvious that the election was
stolen and rather than stand up, it sat down?

April poll by Rasmussen Reports found that 51%
of the population believes that fraud affected the election outcome.  Does
Roberts grasp the significance of that number?  It’s the percentage of the
population who believe the Supreme Court was derelict in defending the Constitution. 
If John Roberts wanted to defend the court, perhaps he should have considered
the pursuit of the truth rather than avoidance of controversy.

recent Ipsos poll found that 63% of the
public thinks it’s time to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. 
The public isn’t stupid.   It recognizes that the Supreme Court needs
to be taken to the woodshed.  The next few months will say a lot about the
Supreme Court.  Will it correct course, or will it embrace servitude to
the mob?


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.