January 6 political prisoner John Strand tweeted the goods this week to prove that criminals deleted the audit trail and system logs before replacing real voting files with fake ones. This in effect rendered Donald Trump and other Republicans “losers” in 2020.

“Tina Peters backing up the elections data before they wiped the systems gave the public a rare opportunity to analyze before and after the tampering – and it shows clear and deliberate manipulation of the voting systems,” Strand explains.

“Now we know why the Democrat Judge in her case refused nearly all of her witnesses and excluded virtually all of her defenses, then sentenced her to 9 years in prison – because if this became a nationwide story the entire house of cards with Dominion could fall.”

WOW: Tina Peters backing up the elections data before they wiped the systems gave the public a rare opportunity to analyze before and after the tampering — and it shows clear and deliberate manipulation of the voting systems.

-Audit trail deleted
-System logs deleted
-Voting… pic.twitter.com/OnBZEsczDi

— John Strand (@JohnStrandUSA) October 8, 2024

(Related: Evidence is already emerging to suggest that Kamala Harris will “win” Arizona due to voter fraud.)

Is this the smoking gun America’s been waiting for?

Peters herself tweeted links to the data files she compiled that were deleted by the authorities and replaced with fake data files to produce the election result they wanted in 2020.

There are three links’ worth of files in her tweet, as well as a link to Tina Peters’ website, which contains even more.

Report No. 3 is especially damning in that it shows a duplicate ballot image database was loaded into the system, emptied as a container, and filled with only some batches of ballots and not others.

“It appears to be a smoking gun,” someone wrote on X / Twitter about these revelations. “The only way to know if it indicates tampered ballot images is to review the paper ballots, which are surely destroyed by now.”

Report No. 1 also shows that election records required by both state and federal law to be preserved were deliberately destroyed. Further, the certification system used on the voting systems failed to meet federal and state requirements.

“The report suggests further investigation to determine if the failures were due to malicious intent or negligence and what impact this may have had on election security,” someone added on X / Twitter.

Despite claims by some that Peters and her “unidentified man” friend committed a crime by making these backups in the first place, Wendi Strauch Mahoney from UncoverDC.com explains how what Peters and her friend did was actually required by law.

Mahoney’s article is extensive, revealing everything there is to know about the case. Peters is now behind bars for the next nine years because of her brave efforts to expose the voter fraud she witnessed in the 2020 election.

Peters’ three reports represent “a meticulous” and careful study into the various illegal activity that was propagated by the powers that be (TPTB) to effectively steal the 2020 election from Trump.

“The reports include evidence of wireless access, the ability for anyone with access to change vote totals by computer or cellphone, database edits, remote changes to data, security issues with the Microsoft SQL Server, log files that were allegedly not preserved and were allegedly overwritten, and ‘uncertified software was installed, rendering the voting system unlawful for use in elections,'” Mahoney writes.

The latest news about the 2024 election can be found at Rigged.news.

Sources for this article include:

• BBC.com
• X.com
• NaturalNews.com
• X.com
• UncoverDC.com

The “impeccable timing” of all this, to quote Jordan Schachtel, made it so that Joe Biden was able to pull off a much easier “win.” And none other than Tony Fauci spilled the beans in his new book, which is not even worth naming.

“On November 7, after the absentee ballots were counted, Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election,” Fauci revealed.

“It was the very next night that Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, called me away from my neighbors’ fire pit to inform me about the game-changing results from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trial. I finally thought we had truly turned a corner in defeating this terrible disease.”

In other words, Bourla waited until right after Biden was “elected” to call Fauci and deliver the news about Pfizer’s “surely rigged,” according to Schachtel, mRNA trial.

“In retrospect, the shots were nothing more than junk genetic material,” Schachtel further explained. “No lives were lost in delaying the distribution of these failed science experiment mRNA injections.”

“Nonetheless, the operation succeeded in taking away a political victory for Trump and delivering it to Biden. At the time, the majority of the public was truly terrified of the Wuhan sniffles, with many voters tethering their vote to the candidate who they believed could best defeat a virus.”

(Related: Did you catch this article from Schachtel about the real Peter Hotez?”)

Trump wanted the jabs unleashed before the election

Had Trump succeeded in launching Operation Warp Speed before the election, the “good news” would have probably secured for him a win. Because it was delayed until after the election, voters are said to have supported Biden instead.

Fauci talks about this in his book as well. He writes that Trump’s FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn “made it clear to the Trump administration that in terms of vaccine authorization he and his agency would not be pressured into taking scientifically incorrect action,” adding that the “vaccine approvals would not be rushed just because the White House hoped that they would be approved before the election.”

What Fauci conveniently failed to reveal in his book is that one year later, Hahn would join Flagship Pioneering, the company that founded Moderna.

“It sure seems like Albert Bourla, the horse doctor who runs Pfizer, and Stephen Hahn, who remains at Flagship, know something that might be the subject of much-needed congressional hearings and law enforcement investigations,” Schachtel explains.

“It’s not like this would be the first time Pfizer and the gang have lied, committed massive fraud, and deceived the public …”

As it turns out, Pfizer and Moderna raked in a lot more dough after Biden was installed into the White House. Their jab contracts with the federal government were renegotiated to become much more lucrative.

Trump and his people had previously agreed to pay Pfizer $19.50 per dose under Operation Warp Speed. After Biden was installed, the regime would agree to $30.48 per dose instead, this representing a 56 percent increase.

At the peak of the COVID scam, Pfizer raked in almost $10 billion in net income per quarter while Moderna’s profit margin hovered at 33 percent.

“Instead of engaging in wild goose chases, Congress would be wise to refocus its efforts on launching investigations against these massive pharmaceutical companies, and holding them accountable for engaging in fraudulent and nefarious activities,” Schachtel suggests.

Will the 2024 election be stolen just like the 2020 election was? Find out more at Rigged.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Dossier.today
• NaturalNews.com

Image by Montgomery County Planning Commission via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.

On Oct. 7, 2016 – just two days before the presidential debate between Trump and Clinton – Clapper issued the unprecedented intelligence advisory with Obama’s personal blessing. It seemed to lend credence to what the Clinton camp was telling the media — that Trump was working with Russian President Vladimir Putin through a secret back channel to steal the election. Sure enough, the Democratic nominee pounced on it to smear Trump at the debate.

And that wouldn’t be the only historically consequential maneuver for Clapper, whose role in skewing presidential campaigns might deserve a special place in the annals of nefarious election meddling – by, in this case, a domestic, not foreign, intelligence service.

In 2020, he was the lead signatory on the “intelligence” statement that discredited the New York Post’s October bombshell exposing emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which documented how Hunter’s corrupt Burisma paymasters had met with Joe Biden when he was vice president. It was released Oct. 19, just three days before Trump and Biden debated each other in Nashville. Fifty other U.S. “Intelligence Community” officials and experts signed the seven-page document, which claimed “the arrival on the U.S. political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

In hindsight, Clapper’s well-timed pseudo-intelligence in 2016 and 2020 helped Clinton and Biden make the case against Trump as a potentially Kremlin-compromised figure, charges that crippled his presidency and later arguably denied him reelection.

The phony laptop letter actually helped Biden seal his narrow victory since many of his voters in the close election told pollsters they would have had second thoughts about backing him had they known of the damning materials contradicting his denials he knew anything about his son’s shady foreign dealings.

A post-election survey by The Polling Company, for one, found that thanks to the discrediting and suppression of the laptop story, 45% of Biden voters in swing states said they were “unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son” and that full awareness of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have led more than 9% of these Biden voters to abandon their vote for him – thereby flipping all six of the swing states he won over to Trump and giving Trump the victory.

In effect, Joe Biden was elected president because millions of voters were steered away by Clapper and his intelligence colleagues from learning about the damning contents on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In 2016, Clapper appeared to use his authority as Obama’s chief of intelligence to try to trip up Trump on behalf of Clinton.

But not everyone in the administration was on board with releasing his official statement about supposed Kremlin meddling.

Then-FBI Director James Comey had also met in the Situation Room in early October to discuss the plan. But Comey balked at accusing “Russia’s senior-most officials” of authorizing the “alleged hack” of the Clinton campaign and trying “to interfere in the U.S. election process,” as the two-page document claimed. Conspicuously, the FBI did not sign on to the intelligence.

Still, Clapper implied in his statement that this was the finding of the entire “U.S. Intelligence Community” and that it was “confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails.” Aside from Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the only other agency that attached its name to the assessment was the Department of Homeland Security. Also remarkable was the paucity of underlying evidence. The joint ODNI-DHS statement based its conclusion primarily on a report by a cybersecurity contractor hired by the Clinton campaign’s law firm, who later walked back his finding in a sworn congressional deposition, allowing: “We did not have concrete evidence [Russian agents stole campaign emails].”

At best, Clapper’s finding was shoddy tradecraft. At worst, it was manufactured, or simply “dreamed up,” as one former FBI counterintelligence official described it to RealClearInvestigations.

Either way, it came at a highly opportune time for Clinton. The Democratic nominee seized on the intelligence report during her debate with Trump in St. Louis on Oct. 9 to tarnish her Republican opponent as some kind of Russian agent.

“You know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin – meaning Putin and the Russian government – are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election,” Clinton asserted, citing Clapper’s warning. “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election.”

“And believe me, they’re not doing it to get me elected,” she continued. “They’re doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”

“Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don’t know the reasons. But we deserve answers,” Clinton went on, clearly reciting a prepared talking point. “And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships that he has with the Russians and other foreign powers.”

Some former U.S. intelligence officials say the Oct. 7 intelligence assessment appears to have been cooked up for the benefit of Clinton.

“There was no evidence to support it,” said retired U.S. Army Col. Derek Harvey, who investigated the origins of the assessment for the House Intelligence Committee. “It was a political diversion to help Clinton.”

He pointed out that the specious sourcing behind the intelligence violated Clapper’s own 2015 Intelligence Community directive outlining analytical standards for such assessments. What’s more, his directive prohibited any political bias in intelligence reporting, warning that assessments must be “independent of political consideration.”

“Analytic assessments must not be distorted by, nor shaped for, advocacy of a particular audience, agenda or policy viewpoint,” according to the six-page document, which was signed by Clapper himself.

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said Clapper’s Oct. 7 assessment is another example of the many covert ops the Intelligence Community ran against Trump to try to keep him from power or to minimize his effectiveness while in office. By pre-cooking the conclusion about the Russian government targeting Clinton, he said, Clapper abused the U.S. government’s awesome intelligence powers to intervene in a U.S. election.

“In hindsight, it is now clear that the leaders of our intelligence agencies directed their immense powers towards all things Trump,” he said in an RCI interview.

Swecker added that Clapper, now 83, was easily manipulated by Obama and then-CIA Director John Brennan, even though Clapper oversaw the CIA. “James Clapper was the Barney Fife of the Intelligence Community,” he said.

The CIA and other American intelligence agencies are prohibited from getting involved in domestic affairs, Swecker noted, and certainly not American elections.

Attempts to seek comment from Clapper, now retired, were unsuccessful. But in his 2018 memoir, “Facts and Fears,” Clapper revealed that he and then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, another Obama appointee, “agonized over the precise wording” in the Oct. 7 intelligence release, ostensibly because the linkages to the Kremlin were gauzy at best.

“We didn’t see any hard evidence of political collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” Clapper admitted on page 349, “but as I said at the time, my dashboard warning lights were all lit.”

He also suggested he was looking out for Clinton – whom his boss, President Obama, had publicly endorsed and was actively campaigning for at the time.

“Both the Russians and the Trump campaign were, in parallel, pushing conspiracy theories against Secretary Clinton,” Clapper complained, namely that “she was corrupt.”

Added the former intel chief: “Jeh and I felt strongly that we should inform the electorate,” and “President Obama assented.” In doing so, Clapper confessed they “pushed the boundaries” of what they could say about the purported “Russian activities.” As much as they juiced the intel, though, they agreed to stop short of blaming Putin directly.

While Clapper, in his book, mentioned the presidential debate that took place two days later, he did so only in passing and failed to note the key fact that Clinton cited his ginned-up intelligence during the televised event, almost on cue.

The Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser later gloated about the Clapper statement, showing how important it was to the campaign.

“The fact is that the entire Intelligence Community stood behind a statement in October that the Russian campaign had hacked the DNC and released their emails,” Jake Sullivan testified in a closed-door December 2017 interview with the House Intelligence Committee. “We feared that we were under attack, not just by the Russians, but by a coordinated [sic] with the Trump campaign as well.”

Sullivan was mistaken, of course. The entire Intelligence Community did not stand behind the statement, which was backed by no real evidence. At the time, according to internal documents, the FBI called the notion that the Russian government was behind the alleged hack “speculation.” And nothing the Russians may have done was coordinated with the Trump campaign, as multiple investigations have concluded.

Having been nearly charged with perjury in 2013 for lying to Congress about intelligence gathering before apologizing, Clapper appeared to politicize intelligence ahead of the 2020 presidential debate as well.

In an Oct. 19, 2020, formal statement, Obama’s and Biden’s old intelligence czar falsely implied damning emails found on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were Russian disinformation. The “intelligence” came just in time for Biden, who would be squaring off with Trump in three days, just like it did for Clinton in October 2016.

“Clapper didn’t know the Russians were involved. He was just spitballing. His pre-debate guesswork was similar to his pre-debate so-called intelligence on Russia in 2016,” said the former senior FBI counterintelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Although the statement declared the Hunter Biden laptop “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” it provided no actual evidence of Russian involvement. Clapper and his colleagues asserted that they strongly suspected “the Russian government played a significant role in the case.” Later in the statement, they went further to state “our view” shared by the Intelligence Community — not merely a suspicion anymore — “that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue.”

“There is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and-or to weaken Biden should he win,” they speculated. “A ‘laptop op’ fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.”

But Clapper was dead wrong. There was no Russian “op.” And the laptop and its contents — including the damning emails published by the Post — were 100% real and authentic, as Special Counsel David Weiss confirmed during the recent trial of Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges, for which he was convicted earlier this month. The Russian government had nothing to do with any of it.

In retrospect, many political analysts agree Clapper’s intel statement was designed not to inform the electorate but to mislead it. But more significantly, the timing of its release suggests it was meant to help Biden in the next presidential debate, which was scheduled just three days later in Nashville.

During that final presidential debate, held on Oct. 22, 2020, Biden dismissed concerns about his son’s laptop emails and family foreign influence-peddling as part of a “Russian plant” after Trump lit into him about the laptop story. “Joe, they’re calling you a corrupt politician,” Trump said. “Take a look at the laptop from Hell.” Leaning on Clapper’s intel statement, Biden flatly denied knowing anything about Hunter’s foreign business dealings.

“Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant,” Biden shot back. “They have said this is, has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

The intel provided a much-needed lifeline for the former vice president.

It were as if Clapper had teed up the perfect talking point for Biden. As it turns out, Biden campaign officials had worked with Clapper’s team prior to the release of the intel statement accusing Putin of planting the laptop story.

In a House deposition, former deputy CIA Director Mike Morell, a Clapper confidant and one of the 51 signatories of the letter, testified that around Oct. 17, top Biden campaign aide Antony Blinken, now Biden’s Secretary of State, reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Morell revealed that one of the goals in releasing the letter two days later “was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate,” according to an April 20, 2023, letter House investigators sent to Blinken. The day after speaking with the Biden campaign, Morell blasted out an email to former intelligence officials to recruit them to sign the Oct. 19 intel letter. “We want to give the VP a talking point to use in response” to Trump in the event he attacks Biden over the laptop revelations during the upcoming debate, Morell wrote his colleagues. After the Oct. 22 debate, Morell testified that Biden campaign chairman Steve Ricchetti called him to thank him “for putting the statement out.” Morell said former CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash was also involved in the coordination effort. Bash happens to be the ex-husband of Dana Bash, who will be one of the CNN moderators questioning Trump and Biden at Thursday night’s debate in Atlanta.

In effect, the Intelligence Community conspired with the Biden campaign to deceive the electorate by creating a false talking point for Biden in the presidential debate, which some government watchdogs say constituted an unreported campaign contribution and a potential violation of federal campaign finance laws.

On the same day that Clapper released the statement, then-Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand hyped it in a story with the conclusive headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” During the earlier frenzied coverage of Russiagate, Bertrand, who now works for CNN, acted as a go-to reporter for leaks from intelligence officials about Trump. She quoted one signatory to the letter as being confident that “once again the Russians are interfering” in U.S. elections. About 15 minutes after Politico published its story, Jen Psaki tweeted a link to the Politico article. Psaki was named Biden’s press secretary the next month. The Biden campaign repeatedly cited Clapper’s statement to dismiss the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden. Clapper played his part by jumping on CNN to claim the laptop was “textbook Soviet tradecraft.”

It’s clear Clapper was rooting for Biden to win. Three days before Clapper released his all-too-convenient intelligence letter, he had donated $1,000 to Biden’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. He had given another $250 to Biden For President the previous October. In the current election cycle, records show Clapper has contributed at least $300 so far to Biden.

RealClearInvestigations reached out to Clapper for comment but did not hear back. However, in a previous statement, he was unapologetic. “I stand by the statement made at the time,” he told the New York Post. “I think sounding such a cautionary note at the time was appropriate.”

Clapper’s history of intrigue gainst Trump includes leaking damaging classified information about him to the media.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper thought he had the scoop of his career when, on Jan. 10, 2017, he reported that President-elect Trump had been briefed by the FBI about “classified documents” containing information from a “credible” intelligence source that the Russians had “compromising” dirt on him. Citing unnamed “U.S. officials,” the report, co-bylined with Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, also falsely claimed that the Trump campaign and the Russian government had “exchange[d] information” throughout the election and that these allegations had been verified. Tapper failed to note that the supposedly “classified” information came from political opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign, otherwise known as the Steele dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

As flawed as the story was, it triggered a feeding frenzy in the national media, which up to that point backed off from covering the wild and unsubstantiated allegations contained in the Steele dossier. But after they learned from Tapper – by way of Clapper – that the U.S. Intelligence Community itself had taken a keen interest in the dossier and appeared to be taking it seriously, they reported the allegations against Trump nonstop for several years as if the dossier reports were the Pentagon Papers.

When congressional investigators first asked Clapper about the CNN leak in a July 2017 deposition, Clapper “flatly denied ‘discuss[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists,’” according to a report issued by the House Intelligence Committee. But Clapper changed his story upon further questioning. “Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper.’” The report added that Clapper secretly spoke with Tapper in early January 2017 and that on Jan. 10, CNN published Tapper’s story about the dossier allegations, for which he won the Merriman Smith Award for broadcast journalism in 2018.

The next day, Clapper issued a statement describing a call with Trump in which Clapper “expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press” and stressed that “I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC,” or Intelligence Community.

Clapper, who was later hired by CNN as an official “national security analyst,” had blatantly lied not only to the incoming president but also to the public. Again. And in effect, he had used Tapper, who’s not only failed to correct the record at CNN, but finds himself in the position to grill Trump on Thursday night as co-moderator with Bash of the first 2024 presidential debate in Atlanta.

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

And two of the signers apparently were under contract to work for the CIA at the time they made the statement that ultimately proved to be a lie.

The committee reported Tuesday that its information shows those CIA elements “colluded with the Biden campaign.”

“We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community. Now with this interim report, we reveal how officials at the highest levels of the CIA were aware of the statement and CIA employees knew that several of the so-called former officials were on active contract with the CIA. The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government,” explained committee chief Jim Jordan.

And Mike Turner, chairman of the House Intel Committee, added, “The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as ‘Russian disinformation.’ The committee worked to obtain classified documents from the CIA, including emails, and fought to include evidence of these materials in our report.”

The details come from the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

In fact, evidence available to date suggests that multiple layers of the federal government have been pushed into attacking President Donald Trump.

For example, multiple criminal and civil cases against him were launched as soon as he announced his run for the presidency in 2024.

Congress’ new report is called, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

The congressional report explains “how the highest levels of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the ‘Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails’ by 51 former intelligence officials prior to its approval and publication. The report reveals important new facts, such as how some of the statement’s signatories, including former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the Hunter Biden statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.”

That statement claimed the details about Biden family scandals revealed in the laptop was disinformation. In fact, it was all genuine and now has been documented as such as the federal government used it in evidence against Hunter Biden in a trial in which he was convicted of gun law felonies.

A survey after the election suggested had that information about the Bidens’ scandals been widely available to voters, Biden would have lost that election.

The report from Congress explained on October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report “detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. Five days later, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed on to a public statement that stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,’ in an attempt to discredit the New York Post’s reporting.”

Social media corporations fell into alignment behind the Democrats’ statement, actively suppressing the truthful reporting.

The committee’s earlier report found the letter originated with now-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who suggested the idea to Morell.

The new reporting confirms that the highest officials in the CIA knew of the “disinformation” statement as it was being developed. A CIA officer confirmed he told Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop of the impending release.

That, the committee confirms, “suggests that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess to validity of the statement’s claims.”

And signers Michael Morell and David Buckley reportedly were actively working for the CIA at the time the statement was released.

That means, the report said, they may have “abused their positions” regarding the statement.

And, the committee report said, “The signatories’ decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference improperly embroiled the agency in domestic politics.”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

“I’m just an average citizen who has a little background in numbers and who is trying to do everything possible to stop the tyranny that I’m witnessing before my eyes – before we lose our Republic,” he writes on his website, ForFreeAndFairElections.com.

Visitors can view his 3-years’ worth of painstaking research, working with nationally renowned statistician, Dr. Stan S. Young, of the University of North Carolina, who has served as an expert witness in former Donald Trump attorney John Eastman’s disbarment trial.

“This website is dedicated to showing PROOF POSITIVE that our elections have become altered and manipulated in recent election cycles,” explains Parker. “We must get rid of the One-Stop and Early Voting; and you should have a really good excuse to qualify for an Absentee Ballot. We must go back to One Day (Election Day) and Precinct Voting – if we are to preserve our Republic.”

Parker met with The New American senior editor Rebecca Terrell in the spotlight to discuss his findings and what they mean to future elections.

The article below, generated from corporate media reports, details how attorney Stefanie Lambert was arrested last night. She is one of the unsung heroes still fighting to expose the stolen 2020 election. Share her story broadly as they attempt to remove her from the equation…

An attorney named Stefanie Lambert was arrested on Monday by U.S. Marshals after a hearing in a separate case in federal court in Washington, D.C. Lambert was charged with four felonies for illegally accessing voting machines in Michigan after the 2020 election. She had previously unsuccessfully sued to overturn Trump’s loss in Michigan.

The arrest came after a hearing in which Lambert was accused of disseminating confidential emails from Dominion Voting Systems, the target of conspiracy theories about Trump’s 2020 election loss. Lambert had obtained the Dominion emails while representing Patrick Byrne, a prominent funder of election conspiracy theorists who is being sued by Dominion for defamation.

In a statement, the Marshals office said Lambert was arrested on “local charges.” A Michigan judge had earlier issued a bench warrant for Lambert after she missed a hearing in her case.

Earlier on Monday, Lambert acknowledged passing on the records from Dominion Voting Systems to “law enforcement.” She then attached an affidavit that included some of the leaked emails and was signed by Dar Leaf, a county sheriff in northern Michigan who has investigated false claims of widespread election fraud from the 2020 election, to a filing in her own case in Michigan. The rest of the documents were posted to an account under Leaf’s name on X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter.

Byrne wrote in a text that he did not know if Lambert had been arrested, but if she was, he respected her even more, and she could raise her rate to him. Lambert contended the Dominion documents obtained under discovery were evidence of “crimes” and needed to be disclosed.

Dominion on Friday filed a motion demanding Lambert be removed from the Byrne case for violating a protective order that U.S. District Court Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya had placed on documents in the case. It said Lambert’s disclosure had triggered a new round of threats toward the company, which has been at the center of elaborate conspiracy theories about Trump’s loss.

“These actions should shock the conscience,” Dominion wrote in its motion seeking to disqualify Lambert. “They reflect a total disregard for this Court’s orders, to say nothing of the safety of Dominion employees.”

Upadhyaya scheduled a subsequent hearing to determine whether sanctions against Lambert or removing her from the case were appropriate.

Dominion filed several defamation lawsuits against those who spread conspiracy theories blaming its election equipment for Trump’s 2020 loss. Fox News settled the most prominent of these cases for $787 million last year.

Dominion’s suit against Byrne is one of several the company has filed against prominent election deniers, including MyPillow founder Mike Lindell and attorney Sidney Powell.

How can they stop him from losing? Simple. If it looks like he’s losing, the elite forces will create enough fake ballots to ensure victory. Our corrupt courts won’t stop them. They have done this before, and they will do it again, if they have to.

I said the Democrats have done this before. The great Dr. Ron Paul explains one way they did this in 2020. The elite covered up a scandal that could have wrecked Biden’s chances:

“Move over Watergate. On or around Oct. 17, 2020, then-senior Biden campaign official Antony Blinken called up former acting CIA director Mike Morell to ask a favor: he needed high-ranking former US intelligence community officials to lie to the American people to save Biden’s lagging campaign from a massive brewing scandal.

The problem was that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had abandoned his laptop at a repair shop and the explosive contents of the computer were leaking out. The details of the Biden family’s apparent corruption and the debauchery of the former vice-president’s son were being reported by the New York Post, and with the election less than a month away, the Biden campaign needed to kill the story.

So, according to newly-released transcripts of Morell’s testimony before the House judiciary Committee, Blinken “triggered” Morell to put together a letter for some 50 senior intelligence officials to sign – using their high-level government titles – to claim that the laptop story “had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

In short, at the Biden campaign’s direction Morell launched a covert operation against the American people to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election. A letter signed by dozens of the highest-ranking former CIA, DIA, and NSA officials would surely carry enough weight to bury the Biden laptop story. It worked. Social media outlets prevented any reporting on the laptop from being posted and the mainstream media could easily ignore the story as it was merely “Russian propaganda.”

Asked recently by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) why he agreed to draft the false sign-on letter, Morell testified that he wanted to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election.” Morell also likely expected to be named by President Biden to head up the CIA when it came time to call in favors.

The Democrats and the mainstream media have relentlessly pushed the lie that the ruckus inside the US Capitol on Jan. 6th 2021 was a move by President Trump to overthrow the election results. Hundreds of “trespassers” were arrested and held in solitary confinement without trial to bolster the false narrative that a conspiracy to steal the election was taking place.

It turns out that there really was a conspiracy to steal the election, but it was opposite of what was reported. Just as the Steele Dossier was a Democratic Party covert action to plant the lie that the Russians were pulling strings for Trump, the “Russian disinformation campaign” letter was a lie to deflect scrutiny of the Biden family’s possible corruption in the final days of the campaign.

Did the Biden campaign’s disinformation campaign help rig the election in his favor? Polls suggest that Biden would not have been elected had the American electorate been informed about what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop. So yes, they cheated in the election.

The Democrats and the mainstream media are still at it, however. Now they are trying to kill the story of how they killed the story of the Biden laptop. This is a scandal that would once upon a time have ended in resignation, impeachment, and/or plenty of jail time. If they successfully bury this story, I hate to say it but there is no more rule of law in what has become the American banana republic.” See here.

But the main way the lection can be rigged is by fraudulent “voting.” It’s much easier to do this with digital scanning of votes than with old-fashioned ballot boxes.

Dr. Naomi Wolf explains how electronic voting machines make it easier to steal elections:

“People could steal elections in this ‘analog’ technology of paper and locked ballot boxes, of course, by destroying or hiding votes, or by bribing voters, a la Tammany Hall, or by other forms of wrongdoing, so security and chain of custody, as well as anti-corruption scrutiny, were always needed in guaranteeing accurate election counts. But there was no reason, with analog physical processing of votes, to query the tradition of the secret ballot.

Before the digital scanning of votes, you could not hack a wooden ballot box; and you could not set an algorithm to misread a pile of paper ballots. So, at the end of the day, one way or another, you were counting physical documents.

Those days are gone, obviously, and in many districts there are digital systems reading ballots.” See here.

This isn’t the first time the Left has stolen an election. It happened in the 2020 presidential election too. Ron Unz offers his usual cogent analysis:

“There does seem to be considerable circumstantial evidence of widespread ballot fraud by Democratic Party forces, hardly surprising given the apocalyptic manner in which so many of their leaders had characterized the threat of a Trump reelection. After all, if they sincerely believed that a Trump victory would be catastrophic for America why would they not use every possible means, fair and foul alike, to save our country from that dire fate?

In particular, several of the major swing-states contain large cities—Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Atlanta—that are both totally controlled by the Democratic Party and also notoriously corrupt, and various eye-witnesses have suggested that the huge anti-Trump margins they provided may have been heavily ‘padded’ to ensure the candidate’s defeat.” See here.

In a program aired right after Biden’s pitiful State of the Union speech, the great Tucker Carlson pointed out that Biden’s “Justice” Department has already confessed that it plans to rig the election. It will do this by banning voter ID laws as “racist.” This permits an unlimited number of fake votes:

“If Joe Biden is so good at politics, why is he losing to Donald Trump, who the rest of us were assured was a retarded racist who no normal person would vote for? But now Joe Biden is getting stomped by Donald Trump, but he’s also at the same time good at politics? Right.

Again, they can’t win, but they’re not giving up. So what does that tell you? Well, they’re going to steal the election. We know they’re going to steal the election because they’re now saying so out loud. Here is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country in Selma, Alabama, just the other day.

[Now Carlson quotes the Attorney General, Merrick Garland:]

“The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. That is why one of the first things I did when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements. That is why we are working to block the adoption of discriminatory redistricting plans that dilute the vote of Black voters and other voters of color.

[Carlson then comments on Garland:]

“Did you catch that? Of course, you’re a racist. That’s always the takeaway. But consider the details of what the Attorney General of the United States just said. Mail-in balloting, drop boxes, voter ID requirements. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States Government is telling you that it’s immoral, in fact racist, in fact illegal to ask people for their IDs when they vote to verify they are who they say they are. What is that? Well, no one ever talks about this, but the justification for it is that somehow people of color, Black people, don’t have state-issued IDs. Somehow they’re living in a country where you can do virtually nothing without proving your identity with a government-issued ID without government-issued IDs. They can’t fly on planes, they can’t have checking accounts, they can’t have any interaction with the government, state, local, or federal. They can’t stay in hotels. They can’t have credit cards. Because someone without a state-issued ID can’t do any of those things.

But what’s so interesting is these same people, very much including the Attorney General and the administration he serves, is working to eliminate cash, to make this a cashless society. Have you been to a stadium event recently? No cash accepted. You have to have a credit card. In order to get a credit card you need a state-issued ID, and somehow that’s not racist. But it is racist to ask people to prove their identity when they choose the next President of the United States. That doesn’t make any sense at all. That’s a lie. It’s an easily provable lie, and anyone telling that lie is advocating for mass voter fraud, which the Attorney General is. There’s no other way to read it. So you should know that. You live in a country where the Attorney General is abetting, in fact calling for voter fraud, and that’s the only chance they have to get their guy re-elected.” See here.

Because of absentee ballots, the voting can be spread out over a long period of time. This makes voting fraud much easier. Mollie Hemingway has done a lot of research on this topic:

“In the 2020 presidential election, for the first time ever, partisan groups were allowed—on a widespread basis—to cross the bright red line separating government officials who administer elections from political operatives who work to win them. It is important to understand how this happened in order to prevent it in the future.

Months after the election, Time magazine published a triumphant story of how the election was won by “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”  Written by Molly Ball, a journalist with close ties to Democratic leaders, it told a cheerful story of a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” the “result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”

A major part of this “conspiracy” to “save the 2020 election” was to use COVID as a pretext to maximize absentee and early voting. This effort was enormously successful. Nearly half of voters ended up voting by mail, and another quarter voted early. It was, Ball wrote, “practically a revolution in how people vote.” Another major part was to raise an army of progressive activists to administer the election at the ground level. Here, one billionaire in particular took a leading role: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg’s help to Democrats is well known when it comes to censoring their political opponents in the name of preventing “misinformation.” Less well known is the fact that he directly funded liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations. In fact, he helped those groups infiltrate election offices in key swing states by doling out large grants to crucial districts.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an organization led by Zuckerberg’s wife Priscilla, gave more than $400 million to nonprofit groups involved in “securing” the 2020 election. Most of those funds—colloquially called “Zuckerbucks”—were funneled through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a voter outreach organization founded by Tiana Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges. All three had previously worked on activism relating to election rules for the New Organizing Institute, once described by The Washington Post as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.”

Flush with $350 million in Zuckerbucks, the CTCL proceeded to disburse large grants to election officials and local governments across the country. These disbursements were billed publicly as “COVID-19 response grants,” ostensibly to help municipalities acquire protective gear for poll workers or otherwise help protect election officials and volunteers against the virus. In practice, relatively little money was spent for this. Here, as in other cases, COVID simply provided cover.

According to the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), Georgia received more than $31 million in Zuckerbucks, one of the highest amounts in the country. The three Georgia counties that received the most money spent only 1.3 percent of it on personal protective equipment. The rest was spent on salaries, laptops, vehicle rentals, attorney fees for public records requests, mail-in balloting, and other measures that allowed elections offices to hire activists to work the election. Not all Georgia counties received CTCL funding. And of those that did, Trump-voting counties received an average of $1.91 per registered voter, compared to $7.13 per registered voter in Biden-voting counties.

The FGA looked at this funding another way, too. Trump won Georgia by more than five points in 2016. He lost it by three-tenths of a point in 2020. On average, as a share of the two-party vote, most counties moved Democratic by less than one percentage point in that time. Counties that didn’t receive Zuckerbucks showed hardly any movement, but counties that did moved an average of 2.3 percentage points Democratic. In counties that did not receive Zuckerbucks, “roughly half saw an increase in Democrat votes that offset the increase in Republican votes, while roughly half saw the opposite trend.” In counties that did receive Zuckerbucks, by contrast, three quarters “saw a significant uptick in Democrat votes that offset any upward change in Republican votes,” including highly populated Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb counties.

Of all the 2020 battleground states, it is probably in Wisconsin where the most has been brought to light about how Zuckerbucks worked.

CTCL distributed $6.3 million to the Wisconsin cities of Racine, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, and Kenosha—purportedly to ensure that voting could take place “in accordance with prevailing [anti-COVID] public health requirements.”

Wisconsin law says voting is a right, but that “voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election.” Wisconsin law also says that elections are to be run by clerks or other government officials. But the five cities that received Zuckerbucks outsourced much of their election operation to private liberal groups, in one case so extensively that a sidelined government official quit in frustration.

This was by design. Cities that received grants were not allowed to use the money to fund outside help unless CTCL specifically approved their plans in writing. CTCL kept tight control of how money was spent, and it had an abundance of “partners” to help with anything the cities needed.

Some government officials were willing to do whatever CTCL recommended. “As far as I’m concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend,” Celestine Jeffreys, the chief of staff to Democratic Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich, wrote in an email. CTCL not only had plenty of recommendations, but made available a “network of current and former election administrators and election experts” to scale up “your vote by mail processes” and “ensure forms, envelopes, and other materials are understood and completed correctly by voters.”

Power the Polls, a liberal group recruiting poll workers, promised to help with ballot curing. The liberal Mikva Challenge worked to recruit high school-age poll workers. And the left-wing Brennan Center offered help with “election integrity,” including “post-election audits” and “cybersecurity.”

The Center for Civic Design, an election administration policy organization that frequently partners with groups such as liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund, designed absentee ballots and voting instructions, often working directly with an election commission to design envelopes and create advertising and targeting campaigns. The Elections Group, also linked to the Democracy Fund, provided technical assistance in handling drop boxes and conducted voter outreach. The communications director for the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, an organization that advocates sweeping changes to the elections process, ran a conference call to help Green Bay develop Spanish-language radio ads and geofencing to target voters in a predefined area.

Digital Response, a nonprofit launched in 2020, offered to “bring voters an updated elections website,” “run a website health check,” “set up communications channels,” “bring poll worker application and management online,” “track and respond to polling location wait times,” “set up voter support and email response tools,” “bring vote-by-mail applications online,” “process incoming [vote-by-mail] applications,” and help with “ballot curing process tooling and voter notification.”

The National Vote at Home Institute was presented as a “technical assistance partner” that could “support outreach around absentee voting,” provide and oversee voting machines, consult on methods to cure absentee ballots, and even assume the duty of curing ballots.

A few weeks after the five Wisconsin cities received their grants, CTCL emailed Claire Woodall-Vogg, the executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, to offer “an experienced elections staffer that could potentially embed with your staff in Milwaukee in a matter of days.” The staffer leading Wisconsin’s portion of the National Vote at Home Institute was an out-of-state Democratic activist named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein. As soon as he met with Woodall-Vogg, he asked for contacts in other cities and at the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Spitzer-Rubenstein would eventually take over much of Green Bay’s election planning from the official charged with running the election, Green Bay Clerk Kris Teske. This made Teske so unhappy that she took Family and Medical Leave prior to the election and quit shortly thereafter.

Emails from Spitzer-Rubenstein show the extent to which he was managing the election process. To one government official he wrote, “By Monday, I’ll have our edits on the absentee voting instructions. We’re pushing Quickbase to get their system up and running and I’ll keep you updated. I’ll revise the planning tool to accurately reflect the process. I’ll create a flowchart for the vote-by-mail processing that we will be able to share with both inspectors and also observers.”

Once early voting started, Woodall-Vogg would provide Spitzer-Rubenstein with daily updates on the numbers of absentee ballots returned and still outstanding in each ward­­—prized information for a political operative.

Amazingly, Spitzer-Rubenstein even asked for direct access to the Milwaukee Election Commission’s voter database: “Would you or someone else on your team be able to do a screen-share so we can see the process for an export?” he wrote. “Do you know if WisVote has an [application programming interface] or anything similar so that it can connect with other software apps? That would be the holy grail.” Even for Woodall-Vogg, that was too much. “While I completely understand and appreciate the assistance that is trying to be provided,” she replied, “I am definitely not comfortable having a non-staff member involved in the function of our voter database, much less recording it.”

When these emails were released in 2021, they stunned Wisconsin observers. “What exactly was the National Vote at Home Institute doing with its daily reports? Was it making sure that people were actually voting from home by going door-to-door to collect ballots from voters who had not yet turned theirs in? Was this data sharing a condition of the CTCL grant? And who was really running Milwaukee’s election?” asked Dan O’Donnell, whose election analysis appeared at Wisconsin’s conservative MacIver Institute.

Kris Teske, the sidelined Green Bay city clerk—in whose office Wisconsin law actually places the responsibility to conduct elections—had of course seen what was happening early on. “I just don’t know where the Clerk’s Office fits in anymore,” she wrote in early July. By August, she was worried about legal exposure: “I don’t understand how people who don’t have the knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election,” she wrote on August 28.

Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich simply handed over Teske’s authority to agents from outside groups and gave them leadership roles in collecting absentee ballots, fixing ballots that would otherwise be voided for failure to follow the law, and even supervising the counting of ballots. “The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the ballot curing process. Please let them know when you’re available,” Genrich’s chief of staff told Teske.

Spitzer-Rubenstein explained that the National Vote at Home Institute had done the same for other cities in Wisconsin. “We have a process map that we’ve worked out with Milwaukee for their process. We can also adapt the letter we’re sending out with rejected absentee ballots along with a call script alerting voters. (We can also get people to make the calls, too, so you don’t need to worry about it.)”

Other emails show that Spitzer-Rubenstein had keys to the central counting facility and access to all the machines before election night. His name was on contracts with the hotel hosting the ballot counting.

Sandy Juno, who was clerk of Brown County, where Green Bay is located, later testified about the problems in a legislative hearing. “He was advising them on things. He was touching the ballots. He had access to see how the votes were counted,” Juno said of Spitzer-Rubenstein. Others testified that he was giving orders to poll workers and seemed to be the person running the election night count operation.

“I would really like to think that when we talk about security of elections, we’re talking about more than just the security of the internet,” Juno said. “You know, it has to be security of the physical location, where you’re not giving a third party keys to where you have your election equipment.”

Juno noted that there were irregularities in the counting, too, with no consistency between the various tables. Some had absentee ballots face-up, so anyone could see how they were marked. Poll workers were seen reviewing ballots not just to see that they’d been appropriately checked by the clerk, but “reviewing how they were marked.” And poll workers fixing ballots used the same color pens as the ones ballots had been filled out in, contrary to established procedures designed to make sure observers could differentiate between voters’ marks and poll workers’ marks.

The plan by Democratic strategists to bring activist groups into election offices worked in part because no legislature had ever imagined that a nonprofit could take over so many election offices so easily. “If it can happen to Green Bay, Wisconsin, sweet little old Green Bay, Wisconsin, these people can coordinate any place,” said Janel Brandtjen, a state representative in Wisconsin.

She was right. What happened in Green Bay happened in Democrat-run cities and counties across the country. Four hundred million Zuckerbucks were distributed with strings attached. Officials were required to work with “partner organizations” to massively expand mail-in voting and staff their election operations with partisan activists. The plan was genius. And because no one ever imagined that the election system could be privatized in this way, there were no laws to prevent it.

Such laws should now be a priority.” See here.

Let’s do everything we can to publicize the steal. That way, we have a chance to prevent it.

About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Democrats and other leftists have joined in a campaign to claim that makes him a threat to “democracy,” although they are the ones skirting the ideology of democracy to censor others’ opinions and to try to keep their own political critics off ballots by putting them in jail.

But now an expert, a top state elections official, has confirmed that’s exactly what happened to President Trump.

It is a report at the Federalist that explains how West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, who is credited with extensive work to clean up and secure his state’s elections, also has been critical of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“‘When we have our own federal agencies lying to the American people, that’s the most insidious thing that we can do in elections,’ Warner told officials from the FBI and CISA on a panel at the February meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington, D.C., according to Wired’s Eric Geller,” the report said.

“While Geller did his best to defend the federal agency — under the suggestive headline, ‘How a Right-Wing Controversy Could Sabotage US Election Security’ — its history of censorship and election interference validate Warner’s concern,” the report said.

The Federalist explained CISA was set up in 2018 “to ostensibly ‘protect ‘critical infrastructure’ and guard against cybersecurity threats.’ It moved into the nefarious business of information management by partnering with Big Tech to silence speech that it deemed to be ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ or the Orwellian-sounding ‘malinformation.’”

It long has adopted censorship as a means to control the information Americans get.

Warner, in a recent debate, explained bluntly, 2020 was “rigged.”

“The election was stolen and it was stolen by the CIA,” he said.

The Federalist noted he cited ex-CIA chief Michael Morell’s testimony under oath to Congress that Antony Blinken, then a Biden adviser, “reached out” to him about the damning scandal details about the Bidens in the laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden.

That, Morell charged, “set in motion” the scheme in which 51 ex-intelligence officials claimed, without evidence, that the laptop scandal details were Russian disinformation.

“Yes, [Morell] colluded with [now-Secretary of State] Antony Blinken to sell a lie to the American people two weeks before the election for the very purpose of throwing the presidential election,” Warner said. “And the FBI covers it up.”

The FBI, in fact, chose to interfere in the election by telling media corporations to suppress the accurate reporting about the Biden scandals. A subsequent polling showed that probably took the election victory away from President Trump and gave it to Biden.

Morell, in fact, testified he pushed the letter to help Biden, “because I wanted him to win the election.”

Warner also noted the $400 million plus handed out by Mark Zuckerberg to elections officials who often used it to recruit Biden supporters.

The Federalist reported Warner already has cleaned up West Virginia’s voter rolls, cut ties with leftist influence organizations and now is running to be governor.

Election law expert Cleta Mitchell said, of Warner, “He speaks the truth — he is a true patriot and I only wish we had 50 state election officials just like him.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Michelle “Miki” Klann, who spoke directly to the board, reported that every last scoundrel on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors fled the room and “vacated their post” after citizens stormed the room and informed them about their personal liability in the 2020 election heist they oversaw.

(Fact check: A forensic audit found that Arizona’s 2020 election results are based on systemic fraud, meaning Biden did not win in that state.)

“My name is Michelle Klann, and I’m here today to put you on public notice and to inform you that you are not our elected officials,” Klann said to the board.

“None of you have ever signed an oath to the Republic of Arizona. Instead, you have signed an oath of office to a foreign corporation which means this is an act of insurrection.”

Klann would continue by informing the board members that they do not have a proper bond carrying surety for their actions with regard to We the People.

“Due to all the voter fraud, you have never been formally voted in,” Klann proclaimed. “Acting as if you have any authority over the people is a direct act of treason.”

Found it. It happened after the meeting was ended. pic.twitter.com/YprmP0yHLX

— The C Report (@TheCReport) February 29, 2024

Maricopa County board members carry $21 million personal liability EACH

Representing the “body sovereign,” Klann explained to each board member before they all fled the room that they are personally liable for $21 million each, and now have the opportunity to cure that liability.

“The fine is $1.75 million per claim and there are 12 signatures which means you are each personally liable for $21 million,” Klann explained about the liability breakdown based on each board member’s 12 signatures certifying the last election.

“If you do not resign in three days, you will be presented with a writ quo warrento, and a waiver of tort. If you do not rebut these truths and you remain in office, we will be notifying the military, and your act of treason will be grounds for an immediate military tribunal. I do not need to tell you the penalties for treason.”

Each board member was also handed a jump drive containing a 5,000-page document notifying all board members about the dangers of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines,” poison in the water, and other matters of importance to Arizona citizens.

“These are high crimes and acts against humanity,” Klann said. “If you cover up high crimes, you will be held guilty for committing acts against humanity.”

“Therefore, I hereby command you to send a public broadcast to every resident in Maricopa County notifying them of these dangers within the next three days or you will be in direct violation and derelict of your supposed duty, making you even more accountable for your actions. Notice to agent is notice to principal. You have been formally served on record.”

The language that Klann used throughout her speech is based on common low, which you can learn more about at ThePeoplesOperationRestoration.com.

The goal with this move is to inspire Americans everywhere – in every town, city and community across the nation – to put their treasonous government officials on notice that they must either do the right thing immediately or suffer the consequences.

“Now this needs to be served on every politician in Washington,” wrote someone on X about the matter, encouraging others to be like Klann and get the job done.

More related news can be found at Rigged.news.

Sources for this article include:

• Twitter.com
• NaturalNews.com
• ThePeoplesOperationRestoration.com

Mark Davis, president of Georgia-based Data Productions Inc., has pushed for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office to investigate his data since May 2021. Davis says he inquired again earlier this month after finding evidence of the same problems in Georgia’s 2021 and 2022 elections.

“The same thing is going to happen again in 2024,” Davis, who earlier this year scored a legal victory over the Stacey Abrams-founded group Fair Fight Action– told The Daily Signal. “I first brought this up to the State Elections Board in 2002. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t admit you have a problem.”

“The secretary of state doesn’t want to address this because it happened on his watch,” he said of Raffensperger. “I don’t know why he’s being like that. It’s happened on everyone’s watch.”

Georgia is expected to be among the most closely contested states in the 2024 presidential election. In 2020, Joe Biden carried the state over Donald Trump by 11,000 votes.

Davis, who earlier this year scored a legal victory over the Stacey Abrams-founded group Fair Fight Action, analyzed voting records based on data from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office and the U.S. Postal Service. He had talked about the data in an affidavit used by the Trump campaign in disputing the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia.

Davis provided The Daily Signal with his updated numbers as of February. They show that out of the 34,869 voters who cast ballots in the wrong jurisdiction, 4,696 who voted at a previous address in 2020 now are confirmed to have registered at the new address or have driver’s license information reflecting a change of address form with the Postal Service.

In May 2021, Davis’ analysis  of voting and postal records showed that a total of 10,018 Georgia voters cast ballots in 2020 using an old address but whose voter registration or driver’s license information now matches their new address. That means that now, 14,714 is the total confirmed number of voters whose registration or driver’s license information matches a change of address form, although they voted unlawfully at an old address, according to Davis’ analysis.

“As discussed Friday, attached is a file of 34,869 records I would like the Secretary of State’s Office to investigate for residency issues relating to the November general election,” Davis wrote in a May 10, 2021, email to Gabe Sterling, chief operating officer for Raffensperger’s office, months after the election outcome was settled. “Many of these voters may also have had the same residency issues when they cast votes in previous elections as well.”

Voting from the wrong address usually occurs when someone votes at a polling place assigned to a previous residence rather than a current address. Willfully providing false information on a voter certificate is a felony under Georgia law punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.

Georgia law states that someone may vote in his or her former jurisdiction only if the move occurred within 30 days of the election.

Voting rules posted on county governments’ websites say:

If you move outside the county in which you are registered to vote within 30 days of an election, you may vote in your old precinct for that election. If you move outside the county in which you are registered to vote in excess of 30 days prior to an election, you have lost your eligibility to vote in the county of your old residence. You must register to vote in your new county of residence. You will be assigned a new voting precinct and polling location. Remember, if you don’t register to vote by the deadline, you cannot vote in that particular election.

Putting aside statewide races, Davis stressed that voting in the wrong county means that some cast ballots for offices such as sheriff, district attorney, and state legislator that don’t represent them. These voters, he said, conceivably could vote in favor of county tax increases they won’t pay.

In what became an infamous phone call to Raffensperger and other Georgia officials on Jan. 2, 2021, in the remaining three weeks of his presidency, Trump and his campaign lawyers referenced the data from Davis’s affidavit in saying illegal votes were cast in the Nov. 3 election.

Trump’s phone call became part of the criminal indictment in Fulton County, Georgia, of the former president and over 15 associates for alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“To put this into context, these are 18 people being put on trial for conspiracy in Fulton County, in part because of that phone call,” Davis told The Daily Signal. “President Trump and his lawyers were not asking the Secretary of State’s Office to manufacture 11,779 votes. They were asking the Secretary of State’s Office to investigate unlawful votes we were already aware of.”

Davis, who has worked with voter data since 1986, said he has testified in five cases of disputed elections.

Raffensperger’s office confirmed it would investigate in 2021, but didn’t respond to his inquiry in 2022, Davis said. He said he contacted Raffensperger, a Republican, and other officials in his office Feb. 1 to ask whether an investigation had been opened—and if not, why not. Davis said he also inquired about voter data beyond the 2020 election.

“I have data and corroborating evidence strongly suggesting similar infractions occurred in the 2021 U.S. Senate runoff and the 2022 general election, and I expect to see more of the same in the 2024 general election unless measures are taken proactively to prevent that from occurring again,” Davis wrote in the Feb. 1 email. “If I make the effort to get that to you, is your office willing to open similar investigations?”

The email said Davis inquired about the matter to State Election Board member Ed Lindsey in November 2022 after contacting but not hearing back from Raffensperger’s office earlier that year.

“[Lindsey] indicated that he had not seen a complaint from me, and suggested I resubmit it through the online portal, which I did in late November of 2022,” Davis wrote, adding: “I recently inquired about that complaint as well, and it apparently cannot be located either.”

Raffensperger’s office counters that Davis is wrong about Georgia’s law.

“Mr. Davis’ assertions are incorrect and mischaracterize Georgia’s laws,” spokesman Mike Hassinger told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement, adding:

This office previously reviewed his ‘data’ and disagreed with his conclusions. Georgia conducts rigorous list maintenance, including reviews based on NCOA [national change of address] data, within the requirements of state and federal law. Georgia law says that all persons whose names appear on the list of electors shall be allowed to deposit their ballots according to law at the precinct in which they are registered. None of the information provided by Mr. Davis shows evidence of what he erroneously describes as ‘illegal’ votes.

Raffensperger’s spokesman was referring to the state’s voter registration list, since Georgia law calls voters “electors.”

In 2015, then-Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican who now is governor, voted along with the State Election Board to refer to the Georgia Attorney General’s Office a single case of a voter casting a ballot in the wrong county, Davis said.

“The Secretary of State’s Office changed its position on interpreting the law,” Davis told The Daily Signal. “The facts are no different than in 2015. Then you had one [ballot cast in the wrong place];  now you have thousands.”

Georgia election law says: “All persons whose names appear on the list of electors placed in the possession of the managers in each precinct and no others, except as otherwise provided in this article, shall be allowed to deposit their ballots according to law at the precinct in which they are registered.”

Davis said the law’s phrase “except as otherwise provided” reflects voters who are “not subsequently found to be disqualified” as discussed in another part of the statute, and those are “the exact voters we are talking about.”

In January, Davis won a federal court decision in a case in which he was a co-defendant along with the organization True the Vote and others. Fair Fight Action had sued over alleged voter intimidation after challenging the legality of votes.

Fair Fight Action was founded by Abrams, the twice-losing Democrat candidate for Georgia governor. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones of the Northern District of Georgia, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that Fair Fight Action had not presented evidence that voters were intimidated.

Davis provided his research to the Trump campaign during its challenge to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. He testified to the Georgia State Senate’s Judiciary subcommittee on election law. IHe explained the illegal voting in sworn affidavits Nov. 30, 2020, nearly four weeks after the election, and on March 24, 2021, after the dispute was over.

“Mark Davis analyzed data from U.S. Postal Service change-of-address (COA) forms and compared it to voters who voted in their former precincts,” says the final state Senate report dated Dec. 3, 2020. “For example, he discovered that 14,980 out-of-state movers still voted in the Georgia general election. Another 40,279 moved across county lines more than 30 days prior to the election, yet still voted in their former county precincts, a violation of Georgia law.”

These initial numbers from shortly after the 2020 election included voters who filled out a change of address form by using  a post office box. So these likely were not voters who moved to a different county.

The count he sent to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office was refined to subtract any addresses that included a post office box, Davis said.