Right the one of the betrayals right off the bat: True The Vote did not stand behind Dinesh D’Souza in the facts of 2000 Mules, but NO ONE talks about that. Why did they not stand behind their own data? Furthermore, off the whole of “Election Integrity” they raise off you:

True the Vote reported about $21.0 million in contributions from 2020 through 2024.

Needless to say it was VERY profitable for them to be in the election integrity game, but this is about WHY everyone is so afraid of the real life fact of Geo-Fencing Data?

THE BACKSTORY:

True the Vote did not fully stand behind the way its data was used in 2000 Mules when it later said that at least one person shown in the film, Georgia voter Mark Andrews, was not part of its geospatial/geofencing study. In other words, the film gave the impression that the surveillance video clips showed people already identified by cellphone-location data as suspected “mules,” but True the Vote later clarified that Andrews had not been identified through its geospatial analysis and said it did not control the film’s editing, graphics, or video selections. D’Souza also later said he had been told the surveillance videos were linked to geolocation data showing people with repeated drop-box visits, but he “recently learned” the videos may not actually have been correlated that way.

THE USE OF GEO-FENCING:

Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules used geofencing cellular data as a way to study movement patterns around ballot drop boxes during the 2020 election period. The data itself reportedly came from commercial cellphone-location records, the kind often collected through mobile apps and sold by data brokers. These records generally do not begin with a person’s name. They usually show an anonymous device ID, time stamps, and location pings that suggest where a cellphone was at certain times.

The purpose of using that data was to identify phones that appeared to travel near multiple ballot drop boxes within a defined time period. The team working with the data drew digital boundaries, called geofences, around drop-box locations. A geofence is simply a virtual perimeter placed around a physical site. When a phone’s location ping falls inside or near that boundary, the device can be counted as having appeared in that area.

The film’s working theory was that a normal voter would usually visit one drop box, perhaps once. By contrast, a person engaged in organized ballot collection would be expected to show a repeated route pattern: going to several drop boxes, possibly on multiple days, and possibly during unusual hours. That is why repeated location hits mattered to the film’s argument. They were looking for patterns of repeated proximity, not just a single visit.

They also said they used a second filter: phones that appeared not only near drop boxes, but also near certain organizations or locations they believed could be connected to ballot collection activity. In the film’s logic, a device that appeared near one such organization and then near multiple drop boxes was more significant than a device that merely passed one drop box once.

After identifying devices that allegedly met their threshold, they compared those movement patterns with public or official drop-box surveillance video. The point of the video was to show people physically depositing ballots at times and places that the geolocation analysis had marked as important. The geofencing data was therefore used first as a screening tool, and the video was used as a visual comparison.

In plain terms, they used geofencing because it allowed them to search large amounts of anonymous cellphone-location data for repeated routes around ballot drop boxes. Their claim was that repeated visits by the same devices could indicate organized ballot delivery. The geofencing was used to identify suspicious movement patterns that they believed deserved further review against surveillance footage.

Share

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

At the same time the government and the media was telling you “geofencing and cellular data was not valid enough to be used” (a big lie) the Biden administration actually used geofencing in regard to January 6th.

For January 6, the government used geofence warrants mainly as an investigative identification tool. The FBI obtained court orders requiring Google to search its Location History database for devices that appeared inside or immediately around the U.S. Capitol during a defined time window, commonly described in court filings as roughly 2:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on January 6, 2021. Google first produced anonymized device data, then investigators narrowed the list using factors such as whether a device was inside the Capitol, whether it stayed there during the breach period, and whether it also showed signs of being elsewhere, such as on the street or in nearby buildings. After narrowing, the government could request identifying account information for selected devices.

In plain terms, the process worked like this: define the Capitol area digitally, define the riot time period, ask Google which devices had location pings inside that area, filter out less relevant devices, then use the remaining Google account information as leads. Those leads were then compared with other evidence: surveillance video, body-camera footage, open-source social media posts, travel records, tips, interviews, and sometimes the person’s own texts or photos. The geofence data was not usually the only evidence; it was often used to place a device associated with a person inside or near the Capitol, then investigators built the rest of the case around corroborating material. WIRED reported that court records showed Google initially identified 5,723 devices in or near the Capitol area, and later produced identifying information for a smaller group, reported as 1,535 users.

The legal issue was that this was a broad search: instead of starting with one named suspect, investigators started with a place and time, then asked which devices were there. Some defendants challenged that as an unconstitutional “dragnet,” while at least one D.C. federal court upheld the January 6 geofence warrant in a suppression ruling, reasoning that the unusual circumstances and restricted Capitol location mattered.

NOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS WEIGHED IN!

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling today, June 29, 2026, in the case Chatrie v. United States. This decision addresses government use of geofence warrants, which rely on cellular location data from cell phones to identify individuals near a crime scene. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court held that law enforcement’s acquisition of such location data constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location records, even for short time periods and when the data is held by third-party companies like Google.

The case originated from a 2019 bank robbery near Richmond, Virginia. Police lacked immediate leads and obtained a geofence warrant directing Google to provide location data for devices within approximately 150-300 meters of the credit union during a relevant time window. Google’s response occurred in steps: first providing anonymized account identifiers for devices in the initial area, then more detailed data on narrowed accounts, and finally identifying specific users, including defendant Okello Chatrie. Evidence derived from this process, including cash, a gun, and notes, led to his conviction for bank robbery.

Lower courts were divided on the constitutional issues. The district court found that the specific geofence warrant lacked sufficient probable cause and particularity, violating the Fourth Amendment, but allowed the evidence under the “good faith” exception (officers reasonably relied on the warrant). Appeals in the Fourth Circuit produced fractured opinions, with some judges concluding it was not even a Fourth Amendment search due to the third-party doctrine. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Subscribe now

The Supreme Court’s key holding reverses the view that such data requests are not searches. By demanding location information from Google, police intrude on constitutionally protected privacy interests in cell phone location data. The ruling builds on the 2018 Carpenter v. United States precedent regarding cell site location information. The Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on whether this particular search was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, without resolving issues like the warrant’s validity or the good faith exception.

This decision limits broad government use of cellular and tech company location data for crime scene investigations. Geofence warrants (a type of reverse-location search) can no longer be treated as outside Fourth Amendment scrutiny. They must generally satisfy requirements for warrants, including probable cause and particularity, rather than functioning as wide-net dragnets. The ruling does not categorically ban the tool but subjects it to stricter constitutional review, consistent with privacy protections for digital location tracking. A related 2024 Fifth Circuit decision had gone further, deeming geofence warrants inherently unconstitutional.

SEE THE IRONY?

On one hand when it cam to elections both the goverment and media said geofencing was NOT valid. In the case of January 6th suppoed insurrection, well that was (in thier minds) valid information.

Now we have the Supreme Court ruling not only is it valid, but when used has legal meanings, enought to make a ruling upon.

The system wants it both ways, but cant have it both ways.

In the end - almost all of this is a racket. Election Intergiry and True The Vote became very rich as an orgnization, but somehow could not stand behind thier work.

D’Souza, relifying on True The Vote and their “experts”, was sued civilly over how 2000 Mules used and presented the True the Vote allegations/data, especially the claim that specific video showed an illegal “mule.” Salem Media Group, the film’s publisher/distributor. Salem apologized to Andrews, removed the film and book from its platforms, and stopped future distribution; the settlement terms were not publicly disclosed.

This is how; I think some operations are run. Look like they are “saving America” but what really happens is it sets up those to get sued for believing their claims. This is another way to discredit the whole of election integrity.

How and why didn’t True The Vote stand behind their claims? Why did something so real, valid and promising turn into a black eye. For me this is no different than the “Q Croud” now coopting and managing speaking vent, tours and fund raisers for Tina.

There are so many operations afoot to discredit good valid work that it makes all of Election integrity look like fools. There was no Antifa call infiltrated and exposing rig, there was no 6th degree polynomial algorithm at play and there nerve was any PCAPS, but ALL of election integrity was discredited for it.

Dinesh D’Souza was right to produce what he did and trust the experts and what they provided. It was the experts who bailed out, not him.

Also, why did all the election integrity podcasters at and in the middle of January 6th at the Capital, never get called out and prosecuted like the average Americans who were there? That puzzles me too! And you should be concerned about it as well. They told their audiences to go, the audience got locked up but not them. HUMMMM

SEE THE RACKET, I DO!

WHAT SAY OU? Comment Below

Share

Subscribe now

The Lindell Defense Funds- Election Crime Bureau’s Report is 799 pages and countless claims. In this critical review - looking for prosecutable evidence of election crimes, we are starting at the first claim listed. Claim #1: Page 24 – ID-ERI.ERI-01 - Systemic Failure to Verify Voter Identities - 393,017 Unverifiable Registrants (AZ):

We are looking at each claim by the “Election Crime Bureau” and attempting to understand (a) is this a proof of a crime? (b) is this maladministration? (c) is this malfeasance? or (d) is this nuanced noise which hurts election integrity?

WHY DO THIS?

If we are to fix our elections, we must be professional, detailed, complete, have the best talent on it and be RIGHT ON 100% and present “provable prosecutable evidence” for a Court of Law. We ALL know our elections are broken, what we need is the evidence to convict and make permanent change.

LET’S BEGIN WITH THE FIRST NUMNBER CLAIM and then you decide what are you looking at:

Claim #1: Page 24 – ID-ERI.ERI-01 - Systemic Failure to Verify Voter Identities - 393,017 Unverifiable Registrants (AZ)

A cross-check of 673,560 registered Arizona voters against:

Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) driver’s license records, and

Federal Social Security Administration (SSA) records

Found that 393,017 (about 58%) had no positive match in either database. The interpretation: these are “unverifiable registrants” — potentially indicating ghosts, duplicates, non-citizens, or people who can’t be confirmed as real/eligible voters. It frames this as a “systemic failure to verify voter identities,” consistent with broader concerns about list maintenance under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

NOTE: This is not a court finding or official audit finding as could not be replicated. In most cases when voter rolls or rolls are checked with SSA data they have only the LAST FOUR DIGITS of a social security number. But the real issue with this is the process which would have to be undertaken. Which is as follows:

· The general public cannot freely access bulk Arizona MVD driver’s license records for the kind of large-scale cross-referencing mentioned in that 393k claim.

o Therefore, in order to obtain such since the Federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and Arizona law strictly limit release of personal information from MVD records (name, address, DL number, photo, SSN, medical info, etc.), what was the supposed list checked against, next:

o You generally need a “permissible use” (e.g., your own record, insurance, employment, court order, specific government function, or certain commercial uses like towing/insurance). Casual research or broad voter roll audits by private individuals usually doesn’t qualify. Under those rules the following applies:

Requests for individual records are possible but require:

· Filling out Form 46-4416 (notarized signature).

· Paying a fee ($3–$5 per record).

· Providing justification.

o THIS BRINGS UP A DIFFERNTZ POINT:

§ With over 10 MILLION records of such for Arizona, who paid the $30m to $50m to get the data to begin with? You can see my point

In election integrity circles, these type of figures are regularly claimed but no one inspects HOW the work with done (this is why Scientific Readers are published – so the work can be duplicated). NOTE: In the case of Arizona, the data was supplied at the Senate level. We had the legal, actual, certified, not public data, The actual numbers and actual facts BEFORE using it as a claim. We think all claims must be qualified.

This is a case where linear thinking and details are desperately needed. It goes like this:

1. What voter rolls version or source was used?

2. What master list of Arizona Driver’s License Information was used, and did it contain the PPI? (PPI, or Protected Personal Information, is a subset of personal data that is highly sensitive and requires stricter legal and security protections to prevent identity theft, financial fraud, or privacy violations.)

3. What was your checking procedure OR did you have just the last four digits of SSN as noted in Voter Files?

a. The problem is just using the last 4 digits of an SSN:

i. Last four SSN digits are not enough by themselves.
There are only 10,000 possible last-four combinations, so in a large voter roll many unrelated people will share the same last four. Add a common name like John Smith, Maria Garcia, Robert Johnson, etc., and false matches become very likely.

4. Just using this limited, if available, public sourced data and not legal audit data, there are many concerns. Here are a few and it is all in how you decide to describe your findings:

a. Not full exact name – is that a non-match?

b. Wrong address or missing middle initial – is that auto mismatch

5. It’s a numbers game and here is how it works:

a. Using the latest Census estimate, Arizona had about 7,623,818 people as of July 1, 2025

o There are 10,000 possible last-four SSN combinations:
0000 through 9999.

o So the simple average is:

o 7,623,818 ÷ 10,000 = 762.38

o So, on average, about:

o 762 people in Arizona would share any given last-four SSN combination

o That means a random last-four sequence like 1234, 7782, or 0049 would be expected to appear in roughly 762 Arizona residents, assuming even distribution.

So, is the Election Crime Bureau (which implies a crime by the name) the indicator of a crime or even maladministration or malfeasance in elections? NO!

It is only a LEAD where to look and what to investigate thoroughly before publishing it as a fact. This is where and why we lose in election integrity. We don’t dig deep and find the exact number, reason and cause BEFORE making any claims.

What do you judge this claim to be evidence of: (a) is this a proof of a crime? (b) is this maladministration? (c) is this malfeasance? or (d) is this nuanced noise which hurts election integrity?

COMMENT BELOW:

THIS COULD EXPLODE TO BE A HUGE DEAL!

The core facts stem from legitimate 2023 reporting on ethics concerns, but the “$20 MILLION+” figure, “HID,” and blanket “refused to recuse in over 500 cases” framing come from more recent activist allegations that stretch the verified details.

Subscribe now

The Income Facts

• Jane Roberts (née Sullivan) worked as a legal recruiter (headhunter) at Major, Lindsey & Africa (2007–2014) and later Macrae. Internal firm documents (from a whistleblower complaint by former colleague Kendal Price) show she generated $10.3 million in commissions (her share of ~$13.3M attributed revenue) over those 8 years by placing high-level lawyers with elite firms.

• Some of those firms (or their clients) later had business before the Supreme Court. At least one firm that paid her commissions had a case argued before the Court afterward.

• Chief Justice Roberts’ annual financial disclosures listed her income source (the recruiting firm) and described it as “salary“ rather than commissions. The forms require reporting spousal non-investment income sources exceeding $1,000 but do not require specific amounts or breaking out commissions vs. salary. Critics (including Price and ethics watchdogs) call this “misleading” because commissions are performance-based and tied to specific placements.

The “$20 MILLION+” claim extrapolates the 2007–2014 figure across ~16 years (including later work at Macrae) and assumes continued high earnings. This appears primarily in a recent Substack post by Christopher Armitage (who is filing a DC bar complaint against Roberts). It’s an estimate/allegation, not a fully documented total like the $10.3M.

Disclosures and “Hiding”

• Roberts did disclose his wife’s employer and the nature of her work (attorney search consultant) on required forms. He amended some filings (e.g., noting an equity interest in her firm for certain years).

• No public evidence shows outright falsification that violates the letter of the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) requirements for justices. However, the commission-vs.-salary distinction and lack of client details have fueled criticism that it obscures potential conflicts. Supreme Court justices follow EIGA disclosures (like other federal judges) but are not bound by the stricter lower-court code in the same enforced way. A 2009 judicial advisory opinion supported that a judge need not recuse solely because a spouse recruits for firms appearing before the court.

Recusals and the “500 Cases”

• Law firms that paid commissions to Jane Roberts (or employed her placements) did argue hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court during Roberts’ tenure. The “over 500” figure tallies all such arguments across many years.

• Roberts did not recuse himself from those cases. Per the advisory opinion cited by the Court, this is generally not required unless there’s a direct financial interest in the specific case outcome. Jane Roberts was not a party or lawyer in the cases, and her commissions were for placements, not tied directly to litigation results.

• This is a real ethics debate—many experts and reformers argue it creates an appearance of impropriety, especially amid broader SCOTUS scrutiny (e.g., other justices’ undisclosed gifts). Defenders note it’s consistent with existing rules and that her work predates or is independent of specific cases.

Context and Broader Picture

This issue surfaced prominently in 2023 amid calls for a binding SCOTUS ethics code (which the Court later adopted voluntarily, without strong enforcement). Similar concerns have hit other justices’ spouses (e.g., income or activities). No formal finding of violation or sanction against Roberts has resulted from this. Activist complaints (like Armitage’s) push for disbarment or investigation, but these are one-sided and unproven at this stage.

Bottom line: Jane Roberts earned substantial commissions (~$10M+ documented in one period) from firms with SCOTUS business, and disclosures were technically compliant but minimal. Roberts didn’t recuse in related cases, consistent with guidance but raising legitimate appearance concerns for critics.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS?

Share

The Great Deluge Stories: THE GREAT DELUGE SERIES w/ JovanHuttonPulitzer The Greek Retelling

Lets Face It - Our System Is Broken and YOU NEED TO BREAK FREE OF THE SYSTEM!

Over the last week my content has focused on helping you find a way to break free of the system. You must do anything you can to break your family free of the system! To me, breaking free of the system means doing anything and everything you can to build a stockpile of cash to break free, pay off your debt and build what it takes to cut all the strings and ties you have to our current broken system.

My published work has always featured this type of topic, from my FOOD FOREST BILBLE to GIANT FRUIT IN SMALL SPACES. Yet one of the common questions I get is how can I buy more land, or buy a homestead?

For example: For a national benchmark, the best current official number is the USDA’s 2025 U.S. farm real estate value: $4,350 per acre.

Here are 6 current market samples from Land.com’s farmland listings:

1. West Virginia — median $5,359/acre for farms.

2. Arkansas — median $7,493/acre for farms.

3. Kentucky — median $7,600/acre for farms.

4. New Mexico — median $7,567/acre for farms.

5. Missouri — median $8,000/acre for farms.

6. Tennessee — median $11,797/acre for farms.

Truth be told, land at these prices is actually hard to come by and is almost double what the data shows.

SO HOW CAN I GET LAND FOR $30 AN ACRE THEN?

There is a little-known secret in American land opportunity rights and Federal law which gives American citizens the right to gain control over certain land rights all across the United States. I go into detail here in this episode of Cut The Crap

In this episode I talk about how you can spend as little as $30 an acre for land in the following states:

Following up to this episode, I did PART TWO this morning:

Americans need to start paying attention to their needs and not the online chaos and the BS Mass Media. Instead of filling your thoughts with conspiracies and evils, you need to think about HOW YOU CAN EXTRACT YOURSELF AND FAMILY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. BUT YOU HAVE TO WANT IT AND WORK FOR IT.

My personal pledge to all my followers and subscribers is to assist you in taking advantage of this little known Federal Law and help you find land (on the cheap) which will pay you (if you work at it) and that could be the jumping off point for your finally being able to afford that small farm or homestead you have always wanted.

This relatively unknow Federal Law allows you to take claim possession of up to 200 acres (10 plots of 20 acres each) on your first foray into this type of land and it is how many have used the system (not abused the system like Somali Day Care Centers) to build wealth and assets (which you can in fact pass on to your heirs) and set themselves free from the system.

If you take the time to watch at least PART ONE you will understand this opportunity, but in PART TWO I shared with you others just like you - who wanted it and went out and made it happen by working it - and used these unique land opportunities to make $1,500 in a hour, and even one who made over $184,000 in three days! It’s real, but ever rarely talked about.

If after watching these episodes you want help getting your own special claim land just like these, it can be done for as little as $30 an acre and we will help you do it, find it, process all the paperwork and make it yours. All you have to do is drop me an email and on the reference line just put GOLD. I will save your email and then very soon you will get an invite to a larger zoom program to be conducted to help you get started if you wish.

BTW, my email is my full name JovanHuttonPulitzer - @gmail dot com

BREAK FREE!

Venezula Stole The 2020 Elections!

That’s been the recent headlines and nonstop cavalcade of interviews with a wide variety of election experts, foreign country experts and paid pundits pushing out over the airways.

The use of the word “pushing” on my part is intentional? There are not many ways I can find where the United States can prosecute anyone individual or group of individuals for doing anything from Venezuela to America. Another point, even is the leader (or past leader) of Venezuela could be prosecuted over elections does that even incarcerate the actual companies or individuals who did it? Or does such even fix the United States elections? I think not!

For me, I think proving such a case with real prosecuatable evidence we be very hard if not impossible.

In an effort to understand if anything at all could be done to Venezuela over possible election I decided to dig deep and find out LEGALLY what could be done! For me, only hard evidence, which has been proven can change the nefarious nature of our US elections. This is why making sure we PROTECT the Full Forensic Audit Archives. Trust me - it is going to be needed after the midterms. Let’s look at the legal standards and what we can do:

Based on the circulating claims that - voting software with purported Venezuelan origins being used to influence U.S. elections, particularly the 2020 presidential race. These claims primarily involve companies like Smartmatic (founded by Venezuelans but U.S.-based) and Dominion Voting Systems (a separate Canadian-American firm), which some have falsely accused of using software designed to rig Venezuelan elections under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, then applying it to “flip” U.S. votes. For instance, Smartmatic itself publicly accused the Maduro regime of tampering with turnout figures in Venezuela’s 2017 election (unrelated to U.S. systems), and both companies have won massive defamation settlements against media outlets promoting the claims, including Fox News’ $787 million payout to Dominion in 2023.

Addressing the “what if” scenario hypothetically which I seek answers for: If software originating from or tied to Venezuela were verifiably used in U.S. elections and believed to have impacted results (e.g., through manipulation, hacking, or undue influence), it would trigger a cascade of legal, investigative, and diplomatic responses under U.S. law. Voting systems are considered critical infrastructure, and foreign interference in elections is treated as a national security threat. Below, I’ll outline potential outcomes based on established legal frameworks, precedents, and how similar allegations have played out.

Immediate Investigative and Enforcement Actions

• Federal Investigations: The Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) would launch probes. For example, in late 2025, Trump’s DOJ reportedly interviewed individuals pushing Venezuela-related 2020 claims as part of broader election inquiries, though no evidence emerged. If substantiated, this could escalate to grand jury indictments for foreign actors or U.S. enablers.

• Election Audits and Recounts: States using the software would conduct forensic audits (as seen in Arizona’s 2021 Maricopa County review, which found no fraud). Federal oversight via the Election Assistance Commission could mandate nationwide reviews.

• Civil Lawsuits: Affected parties (e.g., candidates or voters) could sue for damages under laws like the Voting Rights Act. Defamation suits have already arisen from baseless claims, costing broadcasters hundreds of millions.

Potential Crimes and Prosecutions

If proven, such interference could violate multiple U.S. statutes with extraterritorial reach, allowing prosecution even if acts occurred in Venezuela (as discussed in prior contexts like drug trafficking or terrorism ties). Offenders (e.g., Venezuelan officials, software developers, or complicit U.S. entities) could face charges if extradited or apprehended. Here’s a table of key offenses:

At first glance I personally don’t see in these citations above that actually put the real offenders in jail. Yes, there are ways to pressure countries and gain favors in exchange for “offenses”, but no one would really go to prison.

Thus my quesion: Who would actually go to Prison?

Lets continue:

Prosecutions would require a U.S. nexus (e.g., software used in American jurisdictions or affecting U.S. citizens). Extradition from Venezuela is unlikely without regime change, but individuals could be tried in absentia or seized (as with Maduro’s 2026 abduction and New York trial). International bodies like the Organization of American States might condemn it as electoral sabotage.

“might condemn it as electoral sabotage”

Look at that end result, “might condemn it as electoral sabotage”. Is that not the same thing as a strongly worded letter sent out by Republicans?

Share

With what you know thus far from legal review, what could actually happen if the “Venezuela conntection” was proven?

• Diplomatic Fallout: Heightened sanctions, asset seizures, or military posturing. Post-2026 Maduro capture, some theorists linked U.S. actions in Venezuela to “uncovering” election tech ties, though officials denied it as a motive. Could strain U.S.-Venezuela relations further, potentially leading to asylum claims or defections revealing evidence.

• Election Reforms: Congress might pass laws banning foreign-owned voting tech (e.g., proposals post-2006 Smartmatic scrutiny). Increased paper ballot mandates or blockchain verification.

• Public Trust Erosion: Even unproven claims fuel distrust, as seen in 2020-2026 revivals, leading to violence (e.g., Jan. 6) or suppressed turnout. Ironically, Venezuelan elections themselves have faced real fraud accusations under Maduro, with international observers decrying manipulation in 2018, 2024, and 2025 polls.

• Cybersecurity Implications: DHS would classify it as a cyber attack, prompting defenses against similar threats from adversaries like Russia or China.

For me, I don’t see how ANY of these things FIX our elections and NOTICE public trust erosion has already happened!

When I step back and look at this “Venezuela Did It!” I see another “psychological operation” in play! It’s being broadcast, pushed, promoted and pontificated and the system knows it may not have any real teeth. So, what is the plan?

To placate the American public that something is being done when what the system really wants is the broken system to still be used to control us, place nefarious actors in elected positions and they enable the raping of the system and us!

WHAT SAY YOU?

FOR ME, in the end we 100% need hard physical proof of what happened RIGHT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES by the bad actors here. That is why protecting our Full Forensic Audit Archives is so mission critical! Without hard provable evidence NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

With that said WE NEED YOUR HELP. I predict the midterms are going to be a disaster. Then it will be more than a year of legal battles while Trump is still in office. We cannot ride out the financial delta between now and when this critical information will be needed by the Administration and the United States citizens. Will you help us protect this? Any amount will help, please help!

Share

Subscribe now

This is the draft of my report for President Trump. For transparency I am offering it to each of your here as well.

POTUS PATH OF VOTER ROLL PAUSE TO PROTECT THE MIDTERMS

Opportunity Created Out Of Crisis:

Jan. 6, 2017

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector (Jan. 6, 2017). In that statement, Johnson says he determined election infrastructure should be designated “as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector.”

The official definition is from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s 2017 designation statement. He described “election infrastructure” as including:

· storage facilities

· polling places

· centralized vote tabulation locations

· and the information and communications technology used to support elections, including:

o voter registration databases

o voting machines

o other systems to manage the election process and report/display results on behalf of state and local governments.

THE ISSUE: GENERAL ELECTION OF 2020

Considering there are numerous lingering questions regarding the running and administration of the 2020 General Election and considering the ongoing investigations in Fluton County Georgia and Maricopa County, Arizona, it is our recommendation that the President, under the 42 U.S.C. § 5195c(e) and more specifically “election infrastructure” subsector of the existing Government Facilities Sector, the President of The United States direct DHS/DOJ to begin a critical forensic investigation of the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America.

At this time, the President Of The United States believes the preponderance of evidence supports the elections in the United States has been compromised in several nefarious ways. Even though there are indications there are multiple methods of conducting nefarious activities within any given election held within the United States with its current infrastructure, rules, laws, and oversight, we will focus our efforts SOLEY on the individual voter rolls of each State and Country within the United States.

Therefore, it is recommended during this investigation the use of said voter rolls, backups, poll books and archives version of said voter rolls (in any version) prior to the date of this action, be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

This in NO MANNER will prevent anyone, regardless of race, color, or creed, from casting a ballot in the 2026 Midterms. All procedures will be the same and no laws will be changed nor new laws instituted. For the 2026 mid-terms general mail-in ballots will be adjusted in the fact no mail-in ballots (except for medical reasons or UOCAVA) will be printed for execution of the election. Voters, during this investigation and temporary suspended use of the existing voter rolls will be able to cast their ballot in person by identifying themselves with approved ID and showing up at their proper voting Precinct.

Each county may select to print a voting day and precinct reminder notices to all voters well in advance of the election so as not to disenfranchise anyone from their right to cast their ballot.

If for any reason, anyone showing up to cast their ballot does not have the proper ID or has inadvertently gone to the wrong voting Precinct, they will then be given a Provisional Ballot (as normal procedure), and such Provisional Ballots will be cured in accordance with normal procedures and enhanced security and transparency guidelines which will be temporary.

It is possible that election day – end of day – vote tallies may not be available in total, but since over the last three election periods final ballot counting has been delayed from 3 weeks to 2 months, the Provisional curing process and final vote tally should not be a problem.

Every person who shows up on election day will be allowed to cast their ballot and no one will be turned away from casting their ballot.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ROLE:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 3 says the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” That is the main constitutional duty relevant here.

What that means for critical infrastructure:

Under federal critical-infrastructure policy, the President’s role is to:

• set national policy / direction,

• supervise the executive branch,

• and ensure agencies (especially DHS/CISA and sector agencies) carry out their assigned responsibilities.

PPD-21 states national policy is to strengthen critical infrastructure security/resilience and frames it as a shared responsibility among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial governments, and private owners/operators. It also says the federal government must strengthen its own infrastructure and partner effectively with owners/operators.

The President must act within existing constitutional and statutory authority. PPD-21 and related directives organize coordination; they do not create unlimited command power.

PPD-21 says: Federal agencies (led by DHS) must coordinate with sector agencies and state/local/private partners to identify risks, share information, aid, and improve resilience of critical infrastructure within existing law.

The lead role for this investigation of the Voter Rolls used within the United States election the President assigns DHS the lead coordinating role for the forensic investigation and audit of the integrity, authenticity, accuracy, and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America

The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to:

• provide strategic guidance,

• coordinate the overall federal effort,

• identify/prioritize infrastructure,

• maintain national critical infrastructure centers,

• provide technical assistance,

• coordinate responses to significant cyber/physical incidents (consistent with statutory authority).

· Public/private owners and operators of infrastructure.

If needed, DHS will assign Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs) roles. Each critical infrastructure sector has a designated federal agency that acts as the day-to-day interface and provides sector expertise, technical assistance, and coordination. It requires agencies to protect privacy/civil liberties and follow existing laws. Federal agencies must implement PPD-21 consistent with applicable law, regulations, and protections for:

• Privacy – all the specific details of the individual records of the Voter Rolls will be kept private during the investigation and will only be share with the investigative teams.

• Civil Rights – this investigation will ensure every legal voter contained within the Voter Rolls is treated equally under the law and is not denied freedoms or opportunities because of race, sex, religion, disability, national origin, or other protected characteristics. It includes laws, courts, and government actions that prevent discrimination and defend rights such as voting, free speech, due process, and equal access.

• Civil Liberties - this investigation will ensure safeguarding individual freedoms from government overreach, such as freedom of speech, religion, privacy, and due process. It ensures the government must follow the Constitution and cannot unfairly restrict a person’s basic rights without lawful justification.

Because the President supervises the executive branch and must ensure laws are faithfully executed, the President hereby directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to use any and all at its disposal to examine DHS procedures, conduct internal reviews, prioritize enforcement/investigations, or assess compliance/security risks as they relate to the Voter Rolls and the effectiveness and efficacy of the Election Assistance Commission and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security).

Within this, DHS procedures (including CISA, FEMA, TSA, CBP, etc.) and State government procedures (like state election administration): DHS in no manner is taking over state functions.

The President further directs CISA (CISA provides election security services to state/local partners) under the direction and guidance of DHS and additionally because election infrastructure is designated as critical infrastructure, the President (through the DHS Secretary) can direct CISA to:

• Cooperate and Assist DHS in the forensic examination of the integrity, authenticity, accuracy, and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

• Audit DHS/CISA election-security programs and procedures (internal review)

• Assess compliance with DHS/CISA policy, grant requirements, and internal controls.

• Review security posture and risks in federal support systems.

• Conduct or offer cybersecurity assessments / incident response support to state and local election officials as they specifically relate to the operation, maintaining and voter registration additions or deletions within the State or Counties Voter Rolls.

• Evaluate whether current DHS/CISA election services are effective / lawful / properly scoped.

CISA’s ROLE: - KREBS CONUNDRUM - November 29, 2020

CISA’s role is to be the federal government’s lead civilian agency for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection including supporting election infrastructure security.

In practice, CISA’s election role includes:

· Cybersecurity assessments and risk/vulnerability testing

· Threat information sharing and alerts.

· Incident response assistance (when requested / coordinated)

· Physical security assessments and protective guidance

· Training, tabletop exercises, and best-practice guidance for election officials

November 29, 2020, Chris Krebs stated that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history during a CBS interview. At the time Krebs was the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

Traditionally, to begin a detailed and focused investigation of the management and execution of elections in the United States of America activities begin with a coordinated request by CISA. This normally would include CISA issues an alert / advisory and recommended mitigations (patch now, isolate system, disable feature, etc.).

Contrary to Chris Krebs statement to CBS in his official capacity as Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, at the time of his interview At least 16 states were still in the count/canvass/certification phase on Nov. 29, 2020 (using certification status as a proxy), and Ballotpedia’s 2020 election finalization summary says 14 states + D.C. had certification deadlines in December, and 3 states had no fixed deadline (HI, RI, TN). That means many jurisdictions were still not finalized by late November. Additionally, Arizona and Wisconsin certified on Nov. 30, 2020, so they were still in process on Nov. 29.

The specific list of certified counts, thus closing of the election officially were:

Based on the evidence, Director Kreb has no direct information or facts (including final counts) which would enable his to confidently state “the 2020 election was the most secure in American history”.

States (22) not yet certified/finalized by Nov. 29, 2020

• Arizona (11/30/2020)

• California (12/11/2020; presidential contest 12/5/2020)

• Colorado (11/30/2020)

• Connecticut (12/03/2020)

• Hawaii (Not specified)

• Illinois (12/04/2020)

• Iowa (11/30/2020)

• Kansas (12/01/2020)

• Maryland (12/08/2020)

• Missouri (12/08/2020)

• Montana (11/30/2020)

• Nebraska (11/30/2020)

• New Hampshire (12/02/2020)

• New Jersey (12/08/2020)

• New York (12/07/2020)

• Oregon (12/03/2020)

• Rhode Island (Not specified)

• Tennessee (Not specified)

• Texas (12/03/2020)

• Washington (12/03/2020)

• West Virginia (12/03/2020)

• Wisconsin (12/01/2020 deadline listed)

Plus - District of Columbia (12/02/2020)

Additionally, at the time of Krebs statement to CBS there were 8 states + D.C. (9 jurisdictions total) by that date, which had open election lawsuits. These states are Arizona, District of Columbia, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. At time there may have been as many as fifty in process unsettled post-election laws suits.

None of these lawsuits were allowed to present evidence and CISA undertook no investigatory actions to test the validity of their claims. This again makes it impossible for the assertion of Chris Krebs to be truthful.

In direct opposition to the CISA statements DOJ + DHS (including FBI and CISA). In their March 2021 joint statement, they said foreign actors (including Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government-affiliated actors) “materially impacted the security of certain networks” during the 2020 federal elections.

DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period. This special investigation is directly tied to the security-related issues/threats/challenges tired to the 2020 election but has nothing to do with any votes being changes, but how these acknowledged issues may have impacted the voter rolls and voter lists management.

PROCEEDURES: THE NORM VERSUS EMERGENCY

In non-emergency or non-national security critical times, the recommended method for conducting these measures would be as follows, if the laws or rules were proposed to be changed as the result of security issues:

1. CISA would issue security determination and technical evaluation.

2. The State would be notified of such issues.

3. New laws would be drafted and go through the normal House and Senate procedural process.

The above is the normal process and can be a lengthy process, however when something is an emergency or critical infrastructure issue certain things can be done to accelerate the process. However, the key to remembering this is NOT FOR FORCING OR EVEN INSTITUTING ANY NEWS LAWS. This action is within the laws and only confirms the investigation regarding the use of said voter rolls, backups, poll books and archives version of said voter rolls (in any version) AND the temporarily suspended use of all Voter Rolls until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

NO LAWS ARE CHANGED NO INDIVIDUAL IS PREVENT FROM CASTING A BALLOT

The best path to accomplishing such is to get an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) / preliminary injunction, the party asking (Trump/DOJ/etc.) to allow for this investigation the use of said voter rolls, backups, poll books and archives version of said voter rolls (in any version) prior to the date of this action, be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.

An emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) must show the classic factors:

· Likelihood of success on the merits - How likely a person or party is to win the case based on the actual law and facts (not just procedural issues). This investigation is only a continuation and security evaluation and check up based on items already claimed by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG in previously published reports.

· Irreparable harm without the order – if in fact there are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period and they were to go thoroughly uninspected, ill managed or not forensically examined, then such would cause Irreparable harm to both the American Voter and the United States of America.

o Noting the President Of The United States take an oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
(Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) , and; the general federal oath of office of the DHS, DOJ and other in federal office is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...”
(5 U.S.C. § 3331)

It is the undertaking of this forensic investigation of our Critical Infrastructure which can faithfully assure these oaths are exercised and no irreparable harm is cause to both the American Voter and the United States of America.

· Balance of equities is required to favor the order. This is defined as:

A judge asks:

o If I grant this request, who gets hurt and how much?

§ Under this order no laws are changed, and no one is not allowed to cast a ballot. This is an investigation to assure COMPLIANCE and SECURITY ONLY!

o If I deny it, who gets hurt and how much?

§ If this order is denied, the whole of our government and citizens have lost faith in our elections will be harmed. If people do not have faith in our elections, they will stop participating and America as we know it will be irreparably harm by poor voter turnout.

o Which result is fairer while the case is still being decided?

§ Since no laws are being change and no one will be prevented from casting their ballot, this is no way affects the American citizen and the audit of the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America is in the best interests of the Federal government, State government and The Citizens of The United States of America and is both expected and demanded.

· Public interest favors the order.

o A judge considers whether issuing the TRO would help protect things the public cares about, such as:

§ public safety

§ constitutional rights

§ fair elections / lawful procedures

§ health

§ order and stability.

§ enforcement of the law

Each step in this investigation protects public safety, constitutional rights, fair elections/lawful procedures, health, order and stability and the enforcement of law.

RECAP OF REQUEST:

1. No legal voter will be denied their right to cast their ballot.

2. No laws (State or Federal) are being changed or dropped.

3. This is only a security and forensic review of possible and know election security issues - are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period – as reported by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG

4. This is only a temporary request for “the voter rolls be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.”

5. In such as the suspension is in place while the investigation is underway, and for the foreseeable 2026 mid-terms, general mail-in ballots will be adjusted in the fact no mail-in ballots (except for medical reasons or UOCAVA) will be printed for execution of the election. Voters, during this investigation and temporary suspended use of the existing voter rolls will be able to cast their ballot in person by identifying themselves with approved ID and showing up at their proper voting Precinct.

6. Once the investigation is complete, forensic risk assessment is done and no known security threats continue to exist and the investigation can confirm that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America are safe and secure, the Voter Roll use can reopen and be used provide any needed security changes and protection procedures are implemented and active.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Considering the House passed the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) and sent it to the Senate on April 10, 2025; Congress.gov still shows it as “Passed House” and the latest action as received in the Senate, not enacted it is apparent, even in the most basic of needs and circumstance, Mitch McConnell is the Chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee is not “acting as fast as possible”, thus inaction – this is why an emergency court order is needed.

Furthermore, tremendous evidence has come forward which further shows just how imperiled the elections of the United State of America are, such as:

NON-CITIZENS ON THE VOTER ROLLS:

· Iowa: 277 confirmed noncitizens on the rolls (and it separately reported thirty-five noncitizens voted in the 2024 general election review).

· Texas: reported 2,724 “potential noncitizens” (not “confirmed” in the announcement; counties investigate).

· Louisiana: reported 390 people who they believe are noncitizens on the rolls, and seventy-nine who voted at least once (their announcement frames this as an investigation with notice and opportunity to prove citizenship).

· As of this report Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, and Colorado (24% of the states and suspected to be as high as 60%)

KNOWN VOTER ROLL HACKS

· Voter Rolls Hacks/Theft and Attempted Hacks has been reported and documented in

o Arizona

o Illinois

o Michigan

o Alaska

o Kentucky

o Wisconsin

o Forty-two percent of the State have reported such activities and in 2016 Russia election-cyber targeting figures that are most often cited, the commonly reported number is twenty-one states targeted.

INSIDE JOB - KNOWN VOTER ROLL HACKS

· Voter Rolls Hacks/Theft and Attempted Hacks has been reported and documented to have been at the hands of employees, officials or subcontractors have been reported in

o Arkansas

o Connecticut

o Michigan

o North Carolina

o Virginia

o Oregon

o Iowa

o Texas

o Michigan

o South Dakota

o Documented 20% of the States

FURTHER CONFIRMING EVIDENCE ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN NOW:

Major U.S. government “confirming” reports of compromises and question regarding the security of the elections and election systems utilized in the United States of America:

1. ODNI Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections (Jan 6, 2017).

2. DHS/FBI Joint Analysis Report (JAR) — GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity (Dec 29, 2016).

3. Joint DHS/ODNI/FBI public statement attributing Russian malicious cyber activity (Dec 29, 2016).

4. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Volume I (2019) — part of the 5-volume Russia report.

5. SSCI Volume II (2019) — same series.

6. SSCI Volume III (2019) — same series.

7. SSCI Volume IV (2020) — same series.

8. SSCI Volume V (2020) — same series (final volume).

9. DOJ Special Counsel Report (Mueller Report) — Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (public release 2019).

10. House Intelligence Committee “Russia Investigation Report” (2018) — also affirms Russian active measures and discusses cyber/influence activity.

High-impact, widely cited peer-reviewed empirical studies regarding contested elections and election security and foreign interference:

1. Assessing the IRA’s impact / exposure & effects (PNAS, 2020)

2. Exposure to IRA campaign on Twitter and relationship to attitudes/voting (Nat. Communications, 2023)

3. Troll Factories: manufacturing specialized disinformation on Twitter (Political Communication, 2020)

4. Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter & YouTube (Intl. Journal of Press/Politics, 2020)

5. Reduced trolling on Russian holidays (PLOS ONE, 2022)

6. Who falls for online political manipulation? (ACM conference proceedings, 2019)

7. Engagement/coordination dynamics of IRA operations (Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2020 — peer-reviewed)

8. Reflexive control / cognitive vulnerability in 2016 election (peer-reviewed journal on JSTOR, 2019)

9. Bail et al. (2020) — Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact… (PNAS).

10. Eady et al. (2023) — Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign… (Nature Communications).

11. Linvill & Warren (2020) — Troll Factories: Manufacturing Specialized Disinformation on Twitter (Political Communication).

12. Linvill & Warren (2020) — Engaging with others: How the IRA coordinated information operation made friends (HKS Misinformation Review — peer reviewed; PDF link on page).

13. Simchon et al. (2022) — Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (PNAS Nexus; includes IRA context and analysis).

14. Linvill et al. (2019) — “The Russians are hacking my brain!”… (Computers in Human Behavior; IRA tweet tactics).

ADDITIONAL RECAP:

· No legal voter will be denied their right to cast their ballot.

· No laws (State or Federal) are being changed or dropped.

· This is only a security and forensic review of possible and know election security issues - are issues with publicly acknowledged security-related issues/threats/challenges tied to the 2020 election period – as reported by DOJ, DHS, FBI, CISA, ODNI/IC, GAO, and DHS OIG

· This is only a temporary request for “the voter rolls be temporarily suspended until such a time that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America can be confirmed.”

· In such as the suspension is in place while the investigation is underway, and for the foreseeable 2026 mid-terms, general mail-in ballots will be adjusted in the fact no mail-in ballots (except for medical reasons or UOCAVA) will be printed for execution of the election. Voters, during this investigation and temporary suspended use of the existing voter rolls will be able to cast their ballot in person by identifying themselves with approved ID and showing up at their proper voting Precinct.

· Once the investigation is complete, forensic risk assessment is done and no known security threats continue to exist and the investigation can confirm that the integrity, authenticity, accuracy and efficacy the voter rolls of each State of the United States of America are safe and secure, the Voter Roll use can reopen and be used provide any needed security changes and protection procedures are implemented and active.

In the heart of America’s urban landscape, a quiet transformation is underway as Islam emerges as one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States. From the bustling streets of New York City to the industrial hubs of the Midwest, Muslim communities are expanding their footprint, influencing local cultures, economies, and even policies in ways that reflect their values and needs. This growth, fueled by immigration, high birth rates, and conversions, is reshaping neighborhoods and prompting accommodations that align with Islamic principles, all within the framework of American democracy.

While not an “overtake” in the dramatic sense, the increasing presence of Muslims are now estimated at 4.45 million nationwide, or about 1.34% of the population as per the 2020 U.S. Religion Census are his is leading to tangible shifts in how cities operate and legislate.

Consider Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit where Muslims now comprise over 50% of the population, making it one of the most concentrated Muslim enclaves in the country. With a community of around 110,000 residents, Dearborn’s Arab-American heritage, predominantly Muslim, has turned it into a vibrant center for halal businesses, mosques, and cultural festivals. The city’s mosque count exceeds 10, including the Islamic Center of America, the largest in North America. This demographic dominance has influenced local governance: in 2021, Dearborn elected Abdullah Hammoud as mayor, the first Arab-American Muslim in that role. Under his leadership, policies have evolved to accommodate Islamic practices, such as expanded halal food options in public schools and flexible scheduling for city employees during Ramadan. These changes aren’t imposing Sharia law but rather leveraging existing U.S. civil rights frameworks, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates reasonable religious accommodations in workplaces.

Nearby in Hamtramck, Michigan (a city of just 28,000 where Muslims make up more than half the population) the all-Muslim city council elected in 2021 has drawn national attention. This historic body, composed entirely of Muslim officials, has navigated tensions between tradition and American pluralism. In 2023, the council passed a resolution banning LGBTQ+ pride flags on city property, citing religious sensitivities, though this was framed as a neutral policy on all flags to avoid favoritism. Such decisions highlight how Muslim-majority leadership can steer local ordinances toward conservative values, like modesty and family-oriented community standards, while still operating under Michigan state law.

Hamtramck’s transformation from a Polish Catholic stronghold to a Muslim-led city exemplifies broader trends: Pew Research projects that Muslims could surpass Jews as the second-largest religious group in the U.S. by 2040, growing from 3.45 million in 2017 to over 8 million by 2050.

Beyond Michigan, New York City hosts the largest Muslim population in the U.S., with over 724,000 adherents, or about 9% of the city’s residents. Neighborhoods like Astoria in Queens and Bay Ridge in Brooklyn have become hubs for South Asian and Arab Muslims, where mosques number in the hundreds. Here, policy adaptations include the New York City Department of Education’s decision in 2015 to close schools for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, recognizing these as official holidays for its 1.1 million students, 10% of whom are Muslim. This move, affecting the nation’s largest school system, ensures that Muslim families can observe holy days without academic penalties, mirroring accommodations for Christmas and Yom Kippur.

In Chicago, home to roughly 473,000 Muslims (about 5% of the metro area), the influence extends to economic and legal spheres. The city’s zoning laws have been adjusted to allow for more mosques and Islamic centers, with over 90 now operating. Illinois state policies, influenced by advocacy from groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), include protections against religious discrimination, such as allowing hijab-wearing in driver’s license photos since 2004. Federally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has enforced workplace accommodations, resolving over 1,000 cases annually involving Muslims, including prayer breaks and dress code exemptions.

These evolutions stem from America’s pluralistic ethos, where the First Amendment safeguards religious freedom. In Minneapolis, Minnesota (where Somalis form a significant Muslim bloc of about 150,000) the city council in 2023 became the first to allow the adhan (call to prayer) to be broadcast publicly five times a day, adapting noise ordinances to accommodate this practice. Similarly, in Paterson, New Jersey (30% Muslim), local banks have introduced Sharia-compliant financing options, avoiding interest to align with Islamic prohibitions, all compliant with U.S. banking regulations.

Yet, this integration isn’t without pushback. Post-9/11 laws like the Patriot Act heightened surveillance on Muslim communities, leading to over 700 arrests in 2001-2002 alone. Despite challenges, the trajectory is clear: as Muslims grow to 2.4% of the population by 2040, cities like Houston (over 200,000 Muslims) and Los Angeles (about 500,000) are seeing more halal certifications in food services and prayer rooms in public spaces.

This isn’t conquest but adaptation (and yes can feel like conquest). Muslims enriching America’s tapestry while securing rights that bolster their way of life, from dietary laws to communal worship, all under the stars and stripes.

Now, we just need to get back to YOU’RE AMERICAN NOW and to have such “immigrants” become AMEIRCAN! What Say You?

Subscribe now

Share

Picture someone walking into a lawyer’s office and saying:

“I heard a phone call. Someone said, ‘Don’t worry—we have rigged the election.’ That proves it, right?”

It feels like it should prove something. In everyday life, hearing a blunt confession sounds decisive. In court, though, “decisive” is not the standard admissible, reliable, and attributable is. And a bare claim like “I overheard a call” usually collapses under a few basic evidence rules that exist to keep verdicts from turning into rumor contests.

What follows is the legal, plain-English version of why that kind of claim is usually not usable to prove the truth of what it asserts, and why, even when some part of it might be admissible, it often isn’t strong enough to carry a case.

1) Courts care about what you actually know vs. what you’re guessing

A courtroom starts with a simple demand: a witness can testify only about matters they have personal knowledge of.

So the witness can truthfully say things like:

• “I was in the room.”

• “I heard words spoken.”

• “This is what I recall the words being.”

But the witness usually cannot leap from “I heard a sentence” to “therefore the election was rigged,” because that conclusion requires knowledge of an entire operation they did not actually observe.

That distinction - - - words heard vs. the underlying reality those words describe - - -is one reason courts don’t treat an overheard snippet as a legal trump card. The rules are built to keep juries from being asked to accept major factual claims on a witness’s speculation rather than demonstrable facts.

2) The biggest barrier: it’s often hearsay when offered to prove “the election was rigged”

Here’s the core problem.

If you offer the overheard quote to prove that the election really was rigged, you are offering an out-of-court statement for its truth! That’s the textbook definition of hearsay.

And the basic rule is blunt:

• Hearsay is not admissible unless a specific rule or statute provides an exception.

Why does this rule exist? Because the person who supposedly said the key words (“we rigged it”) is not on the stand, under oath, being cross-examined. Courts treat that as a reliability red flag.

“But I personally heard it, so how is that hearsay?”

Because hearsay isn’t about whether you are honest. It’s about whether the original speaker’s claim can be tested. A jury can cross-examine you about your memory, your bias, your hearing, and your note-taking. But they cannot cross-examine the person on the call about what they meant, whether they were joking, exaggerating, lying, speaking metaphorically, or repeating someone else.

3) Even if hearsay might be avoidable, you still have an identity problem: “Who said it?”

Courts don’t admit “someone said…” the way social media does. To use a statement against someone, you must be able to show the statement is connected to the person you’re accusing.

That’s where authentication comes in. Evidence must be supported enough that a factfinder could conclude “this is what you say it is.”

For voice/phone statements in particular, the rules contemplate voice identification (sucha s) someone has to credibly identify the speaker’s voice (from familiarity or circumstances connecting the voice to the alleged speaker).

With an overheard call, especially a brief snippet, common courtroom questions become fatal:

• How do you know whose voice that was?

• How long did you hear them?

• How familiar are you with their voice?

• Could it have been someone else?

• Was it on speakerphone? Through a wall? Over a bad connection?

If the witness can’t reliably identify the speaker, the statement often can’t be attributed to the accused! Meaning it’s not only weak, it’s often inadmissible because it can’t be properly authenticated.

4) “Hearsay within hearsay” makes it worse (and this comes up constantly)

In real life, these stories rarely remain clean and single-layered. They turn into:

• “I heard Person A on the phone say, ‘Person B told me not to worry, we rigged it.’”

Now you have a statement inside a statement.

The rule for that is straightforward: each layer must independently fit an exception or it stays out.

In practice, that’s hard to satisfy. One shaky overheard quote can become two separate hearsay problems that both need solutions.

5) The “party-opponent admission” exception is real, but it doesn’t rescue most overheard-call stories

People sometimes hear “hearsay is inadmissible” and think it’s absolute. It isn’t.

A classic pathway is when the statement is offered against the speaker as an admission of a party-opponent—those are treated as “not hearsay” under the federal rules.

So if the defendant themselves clearly said, “We rigged the election,” and you can reliably prove it was them, that can be admissible in principle.

But overheard-call claims usually fail on the earlier hurdles:

• You can’t authenticate who the speaker was (voice ID problems)

• You can’t provide reliable context (tone, sarcasm, what “rigged” meant).

• The claim often becomes double hearsay as soon as it’s retold with “he said she said…” layers.

So the honest legal answer is: it’s not that it is magically forbidden forever, it’s that most versions of this story don’t meet the foundational requirements to come in, and even fewer are strong enough to win.

6) If the “listening” was actually interception, it can be barred outright

There’s another landmine hidden in your phrasing: “listened to a phone call.”

If that means the person intercepted a call they weren’t a party to (or used a device/app to capture it) without lawful consent, federal wiretap law can trigger a very strong exclusion rule:

• If a wire/oral communication was intercepted unlawfully, no part of its contents, and no evidence derived from it may be received in evidence in court proceedings.

That exclusion principle is also described in DOJ guidance discussing the statute’s effect.

So even before you reach hearsay or authentication, a judge may say: we don’t litigate cases with illegally intercepted communications.

(And separately, illegal interception can itself be criminal, depending on what happened and what laws apply.

7) Judges can exclude “inflammatory but thin” evidence even if technically relevant

Even if a statement clears some hurdles, the court still weighs whether its value is outweighed by risks like unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.

A naked sentence like “we rigged the election” is highly inflammatory and can cause a jury to decide emotionally rather than on tested facts—especially if:

• the speaker isn’t clearly identified,

• the context is unknown,

• the statement is ambiguous (“rigged” can mean many things),

• there’s no corroboration.

That’s exactly the kind of situation where courts use the balancing rule to keep trials from becoming referendum theater.

8) In criminal cases, the Constitution adds pressure: cross-examination matters

In criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment confrontation right (as interpreted in modern case law) reinforces the idea that the government generally can’t use certain out-of-court testimonial statements unless the defendant had a chance to cross-examine the declarant.

A private phone call between private people usually isn’t “testimonial” in the Crawford sense, but the deeper point still matters: our system is built around live testimony you can test.

That’s why “someone told me they heard someone say…” is the opposite of what courts prefer.

9) What would make such a claim usable (and why courts demand it)

If you want something like this to matter in court, you typically need more than a story. You need foundations and corroboration, such as:

• A lawful recording with provenance (and if you’re proving the recording’s content, the “original” rule can become relevant).

• Reliable speaker identification (voice familiarity, surrounding circumstances).

• Independent evidence tying the call to the accused (call logs, witnesses to the call, device records, etc.).

• Context showing what “rigged” meant, because ambiguity kills probative value and increases the risk of being excluded under the balancing rule.

Without those things, the claim tends to remain what courts are designed to filter out: a potentially sincere recollection that cannot be reliably attributed, tested, or placed in context.

Bottom line (in courtroom language)

A person who says “I overheard a call where someone said ‘we rigged the election’” usually runs into:

1. Hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the claim.

2. Authentication/identity problems (who actually said it?).

3. Double-hearsay if the story contains “X said Y said…” layers.

4. Possible statutory exclusion if the call was unlawfully intercepted.

5. Rule 403 balancing if it’s inflammatory and low-reliability.

So it’s not that courts “don’t care” about allegations. It’s that courts require testable proof, and a lone overheard quote, without identity, context, and lawful acquisition, usually can’t meet that standard.

EACH ONE OF YOU KNOW THE CALL I AM SPEAKING OF!

So how did it even make it into the “sphere of Election Integrity”?

I covered this in my program you can find here:

IT WAS SO MEGA-AMPLIFIED it enabled the following:

Proportionality bias
People expect big events to have big causes. So “a foreign government hacked it” feels more proportional than “a messy mix of process gaps, incentives, and human error.”

Intentionality bias
We over-attribute outcomes to someone’s deliberate intent instead of accidents, bureaucracy, incompetence, or systemic drift.

Pattern perception / agent detection
When information is noisy, humans “connect dots” and infer a planner. It’s cognitively easier to see a single plot than many small failures.

Availability heuristic + salience
Vivid, emotional stories (villains, secret hacks, dramatic claims) are easier to recall and therefore feel more likely than procedural, technical realities.

Narrative bias
A clean story with characters and motives is more satisfying than “multi-factor operational breakdown.” Narratives are sticky; spreadsheets aren’t.

Motivated reasoning / identity-protective cognition
People often accept explanations that protect their group identity or preferred conclusion. A foreign villain can preserve “my side didn’t really lose” or “the system isn’t flawed, someone attacked it.”

Illusory truth effect
Repeated claims start to feel true, even without good evidence, especially in high-repetition media environments.

Why “inside-the-system broke facts” lose

Simple internal explanations are usually:

• incremental, technical, boring

• hard to compress into a meme

• distributed (no single culprit)

• uncomfortable (implies “we” have to fix it)

Whereas outlandish claims offer:

• a single enemy

• emotional clarity

• instant certainty

• low effort to understand

NOW YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHY THAT UNPROVABLE CALL WAS MEGA-AMPLIFIED! It’s Was Part Of The Plan!

Share

Subscribe now

People don’t usually choose the outlandish story because they’re stupid. They choose it because it’s easier on the mind, easier on the heart, and easier on the soul than the alternative: learning the real machinery of elections, facing tradeoffs, accepting uncertainty, and then doing the slow, unglamorous work of fixing things.

Start with a basic truth about human attention. We are not built to hold ten procedural details in our head when one dramatic image will do. “A foreign government hacked our election” is a picture. It has a villain, a plot, a motive, and a clean ending. You can say it in one sentence. You can feel it in one second. It fits in a headline, a tweet, a bumper sticker, a speech. It doesn’t require you to sit down with a county election manual, learn what a logic-and-accuracy test is, understand chain-of-custody, reconcile voter rolls, or separate what is possible from what is probable. It’s a story that travels at the speed of emotion.

Now compare that to the “plain facts” explanation: our elections are complicated systems run by humans under pressure and under threat, with unevenm or dark funding, uneven training, messy laws, intentionally flawed and non enforceable laws, and a patchwork of procedures and half-assed security meascures. In many places, the system works. In some places, it breaks. Sometimes it breaks in small ways that look huge on the news. Sometimes it breaks in ways you’ll never see unless you know what to audit. That explanation is not one story. It’s a dozen stories. It doesn’t have a single villain. It has friction. It has paperwork. It has manufactured errors, nefarious incentives, and ordinary neglect and weak enforcement. It asks you to accept a reality that is both more boring and more demanding: things can be imperfect without being an epic plot.

And this is where the preference begins. The outlandish story offers simplicity, and simplicity is relief.

Relief from complexity. Relief from ambiguity. Relief from the slow ache of “maybe I don’t fully understand what happened.”

When people are under stress, they don’t widen their worldview; they narrow it. They want a clean answer that locks the door on uncertainty. A conspiracy narrative is a mental closing argument. It gives you a verdict before you’ve sat through the trial.

There’s also the proportionality problem, an instinct so common it might as well be written into the human operating system. Big events should have big causes. A razor-thin election, a national argument, a sense that the country is splitting in half, surely that must be caused by something enormous, deliberate, and dramatic. Not by a chain of minor and intentional procedural weaknesses, the uneven competence of local jurisdictions, and the fact that modern elections are managed in public by volunteers and underpaid staff (while the system uses them as pawns) and while the entire internet screams at them.

“Hacked by Venezuela” feels like a cause worthy of the emotional weight people are carrying. “Our procedures need improvement” feels insulting to the scale of their fear and anger, because it’s not a thunderclap; it’s maintenance.

But the deeper reason people prefer the outlandish explanation isn’t just intellectual. It’s moral. Because if the real answer is that elections are a system one we can strengthen through transparency, audits, better training, better funding, better laws then the next step is painfully clear: we have to do something.

That’s a heavier burden than most people admit.

Real-world fixes require patience and humility. They require attending county meetings, reading actual statutes, asking uncomfortable questions, and staying engaged after the headlines disappear. They require learning enough to be useful, which means admitting what you don’t know. They require cooperation with neighbors who don’t share your politics. They require work that is slow and often thankless just like rebuilding a bridge while traffic still runs across it.

The outlandish story offers a way around that burden.

If the problem is an all-powerful external villain, then your personal responsibility shrinks. You can post about it. You can rage about it. You can demand arrests. You can insist the fix is simply “expose the plot.” You can treat yourself as a witness rather than a participant. This is one of the quiet seductions of conspiracy thinking: it transforms citizenship from a craft into a mood.

There’s also a comfort in villainy. A villain provides moral clarity.

Elections are messy and procedural, which forces you to live in a gray world where people can disagree, errors can happen without malice, and solutions require tradeoffs. A villain collapses that gray into black and white. It gives people a simple emotional map: good people versus bad people, victims versus perpetrators, patriots versus traitors. Moral clarity feels like strength. It feels like certainty. It feels like being on solid ground.

And once someone stands on that ground, it becomes hard to move them. Not because they lack facts, but because facts are not the primary glue holding the belief together. Identity is.

If a person publicly commits to an outlandish claim, especially in front of their friends, family, church group, social media following, or political tribe, backing away becomes costly. Admitting “I might have been wrong” feels like admitting “I am foolish,” or “I betrayed my side,” or “I can’t trust my own judgment.” Humans avoid that pain the way we avoid touching a hot stove. We will rationalize, deflect, and double down, because the alternative is social and personal embarrassment. This is why repetition matters. Say something often enough, and it becomes not merely an idea but a badge.

The modern media environment intensifies all of it. Outlandish stories are optimized for speed and spread. The algorithm doesn’t reward nuance; it rewards engagement. Engagement is driven by emotion. Emotion is driven by conflict, fear, anger, and surprise. “Local election office implemented inconsistent signature verification procedures that should be standardized and audited” is not going to outrun “foreign hackers stole your vote.” One is a committee meeting. The other is a thriller.

So people are soaked in the language of thrillers. Every day, someone is selling them a narrative that is more dramatic than the last, because dramatic narratives win attention, and attention is currency. Over time, the public becomes trained, actually conditioned, to equate intensity with truth. If it’s shocking, it must be real. If it’s calm, it must be hiding something. That is a terrible instinct to bring into election administration, which is mostly calm people doing careful work and writing reports.

Then there is the uncomfortable reality that “inside” explanations imply shared ownership. If elections are “broke” in ways that can be improved, that means the fix involves budgets, new laws, new proceedures, real audits, staffing, laws, and civic participation. In other words, it implicates voters, legislators, officials, and communities. It implicates us. An external villain lets us outsource the shame. It lets us say, “We didn’t let our systems degrade; they were attacked.” That preserves a flattering self-image.

But a society can’t live on flattering self-images forever. If we refuse to do maintenance because we prefer myths, the machine eventually fails and then the myth becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Trust collapses.

People stop volunteering as poll workers because they’re afraid. People won’t demand Full Foresenic Audits because they fear the backlash and retribution which comes with such efforts. Good administrators quit because they’re exhausted and threatened. Recruitment suffers. Training suffers. Errors increase. The system becomes shakier, not because it was secretly seized by foreign hands, but because its own citizens made it impossible to run with competence and dignity. That is one of the great ironies of conspiratorial narratives: they can damage the very thing they claim to defend.

There’s a second irony too. Outlandish stories often promise control. They say, “If you can just see the hidden hand, everything makes sense.” That promise is seductive because it suggests you are not helpless.

You are not lost in chaos. Someone is in charge even if they’re evil. The idea that nobody is fully in charge, that complex systems fail through a thousand ordinary cracks, is psychologically terrifying. It forces you to confront how fragile modern life is. It forces you to accept that sometimes you don’t get a satisfying “why.”

And elections, with their stakes and symbolism, are the perfect stage for that fear. Elections are not merely a process; they are a ritual of legitimacy. They are how a nation tells itself, “This is who we are.” When people feel that identity slipping economically, culturally, spiritually andthey often experience election outcomes as existential threats. In that emotional state, the mind hunts for explanations that match the intensity of the fear. Proportionality bias kicks in: big fear, big cause. So the story grows grander. It becomes international, shadowy, cinematic.

Meanwhile, the procedural reality sits there, unglamorous, still demanding to be audited, but being the only real act which exsposes the real truth!

If you want the public to prefer facts, you have to recognize what facts are competing with. Facts are competing with a product: the product of certainty, outrage, belonging, and moral clarity. Facts on their own are thin. They need to be carried by narratives too, narratives that don’t lie, but that can still be understood.

That means telling the true story in a way that speaks to the human brain. The true story is not “everything is fine” and it is not “everything is stolen.” The true story is that elections are a high-trust public system that requires constant upkeep. They are local, human, procedural, and auditable. They can be improved. They can be verified. They can be strengthened. But they cannot be run on vibes and rumors.

And it means shifting the emotional reward structure. If the only people praised online are the ones who shout the loudest, then shouting will dominate. Communities have to learn to honor the unglamorous virtues again: patience, competence, precision, fairness, and the courage to say “I don’t know yet.” People should celebrate the citizen who learns how audits work, attends a canvass meeting, volunteers as a poll worker, or helps neighbors understand ballots and procedures. That is what real ownership looks like.

Because the honest truth is this: the outlandish story is a way of avoiding adulthood.

Adulthood says, “The world is complex, I may be wrong, and I have responsibilities anyway.” It says, “I will verify before I declare.” It says, “I will do the boring work because the boring work is what keeps the lights on.” Democracy is not sustained by viral certainty. It is sustained by ordinary people taking ordinary action, such as showing up, learning, watching, participating, improving.

When people choose the outlandish story, they are often choosing an emotional shortcut. They are choosing a story that makes them feel powerful without making them become competent. They are choosing accusation over understanding because understanding would obligate them. And obligation is heavy.

But it’s also hopeful. Because the moment you accept the plain facts (the real, audited, fixable facts) you regain something the outlandish story never truly offers: agency. Not the cheap agency of posting a claim and feeling righteous, but the solid agency of knowing what to do next.

In elections, that “next” is rarely glamorous. It might be advocating for clear chain-of-custody rules, better public records practices, better funding, consistent training, transparent audits, and systems that produce evidence ordinary citizens can understand. It might be pushing for reforms that reduce ambiguity, because ambiguity is the oxygen of conspiracy narratives. It might be demanding that officials communicate better, show their work, publish the steps, explain the safeguards in plain language.

Most importantly, it might be deciding that you don’t need an epic villain to justify caring. You can care because the system is yours. You can care because legitimacy matters. You can care because a free people maintains the tools of freedom.

The outlandish story will always be there, waiting like candy on the counter. It’s sweet, fast, and satisfying. But it never nourishes. The factual story is more like a meal you have to cook yourself. It takes time. It requires effort. It demands you wash the dishes afterward. Yet it’s the only kind of story that keeps a society healthy.

So the question isn’t merely “Why do people believe outlandish stories?” The question is “What kind of citizens are we training ourselves to be?” If we train ourselves to prefer dramatic certainty over disciplined understanding, we will get more drama and less truth. If we train ourselves to take personal action such as being willing to mlearn, verify, participate, and improve then and only then we will get something rare and precious: a system sturdy enough to survive disagreement.

People expect big events to have big causes. So “a foreign government hacked it” feels more proportional than “a messy mix of process gaps, incentives, and human error.”

And maybe that’s the most important point. Republics don’t fail only when they are attacked. They fail when their people decide reality is too hard, and choose comfort over competence.

Subscribe now

Share

Do you understand the various ways our elections in the United States audited? Here are the details of each and how they apply.

Risk Limiting Audit

Picture an election like a huge jar full of mixed-color marbles, and the tabulator’s job is to tell you which color won. A Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) is how you check the winner without recounting every single marble unless the check says you must. The “risk limit” is the promise: if the reported winner is wrong, the audit has a known, small maximum chance of failing to catch that (for example, a 5% risk limit means at most a 5% chance the audit would incorrectly “pass” a wrong outcome). NIST+2Colorado Secretary of State+2

Here’s what an RLA looks like, step by step, in plain language:

1. Start with a voter-verifiable paper trail
   RLAs depend on having paper ballots (or voter-verifiable paper records) that are the “ground truth.” The audit is about checking the reported outcome against what a careful human inspection of the paper would show. NIST+1

2. Pick the “risk limit” and the contests to audit
   Election officials choose how strict the check should be (the risk limit) and which races/contests are being audited. A closer race generally requires checking more ballots than a landslide does. Colorado Secretary of State+1

3. Build the “map” so any randomly chosen ballot can be found
   The audit needs a reliable ballot manifest basically a directory that says where ballots live (containers, batches, box numbers, etc.) so when the random process selects Ballot #X, officials can retrieve the right physical ballot with chain-of-custody controls. U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

4. Generate randomness in public (the “seed”)
   To prevent cherry-picking, many RLA programs generate a public random seed (often in a public meeting) and use it to drive a pseudo-random number generator that selects which ballots will be audited. GovDelivery+1

5. Randomly select ballots (or batches) to audit
   Using that seed and the manifest, the process produces a list of specific ballots to pull (or, in some methods, batches). NIST+1

6. Retrieve those ballots under tight procedures
   Officials pull the selected ballots using documented handling rules so observers can be confident the right ballots were retrieved and nothing was swapped. (This is where chain-of-custody discipline matters.) U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

7. Humans interpret those ballots, and you compare to what the system said
   There are two common flavors:

• Ballot-polling RLA: humans read the sampled ballots and use statistics to see if that sample provides strong evidence the reported winner really won. NIST+1

• Ballot-level comparison RLA: humans read the sampled ballots and compare each one to the system’s corresponding cast vote record (CVR). Discrepancies become quantified “evidence” and affect whether you must expand the sample. electionline+1

8. Do the math: “Is the evidence strong enough yet?”
   After each round, RLA formulas compute whether the observed agreement between paper and reported results is strong enough to “confirm” the outcome at the chosen risk limit. NIST+1

9. If problems show up, the audit automatically expands
   This is the heart of RLAs: if discrepancies are too frequent or too severe, the audit doesn’t “shrug” it pulls more randomly selected ballots and checks again. NIST+1

10. Worst case: it escalates to a full hand count for that contest
    If the evidence never becomes strong enough, the RLA “fails safe” by escalating until the outcome is resolved potentially by a full hand count (effectively a recount of the contest being audited). NIST+2Verified Voting+2

One last plain-English boundary: an RLA is designed to verify the correctness of the outcome (who won), not to investigate everything that could possibly go wrong in an election (like voter eligibility, coercion, or whether someone should’ve received a ballot

LOGIC AND ACCURACY TESTING

A Logic & Accuracy test (often called an L&A test) is the “dress rehearsal” election officials run on voting machines before real voting and tabulation to make sure two things are true:

• Logic: the system is set up correctly (right ballot styles, contests, rules like overvotes, etc.).

• Accuracy: the equipment counts votes exactly as marked. U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

Here’s what it looks like in real life, in plain language:

1. Ballots are finalized and the election is programmed
   Officials load the official ballot definitions into the election system (the candidates, contests, precinct/ballot styles, and rules). L&A is typically when equipment is about to be placed into “election mode,” so documentation and control matter. U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

2. They create a “test deck” (a pre-audited set of marked ballots)
   This is a stack of ballots marked in a known pattern so the expected totals are already calculated. The deck usually includes normal votes and tricky cases like overvotes, undervotes, and blank ballots to confirm the system handles them correctly. U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

3. They prove the machines start at zero
   They verify the equipment shows no votes are stored (often by printing a “zero tape” / zero report).

4. They run the test deck through every relevant device
   Test ballots are scanned through the same tabulators that will count real ballots (precinct scanners and/or central-count scanners). If ballot-marking devices are used, they’re tested too—by producing test ballots that are then scanned.

5. They compare the machine totals to the known expected totals
   If the system totals don’t match the pre-audited results, the test fails.

6. If there’s an error, they fix it and rerun until it’s clean
   The point is an errorless count before equipment is approved for use. Arizona Legislature+1

7. They lock it down for the election
   After it passes, equipment/media are secured (sealed, logged, controlled access) until used for real voting or tabulation.

Using Arizona as an example:

Arizona makes this concept explicit in A.R.S. § 16-449:

• Requires testing the tabulating equipment and programs before the election to ensure it “will correctly count” votes.

• Requires public notice (at least 48 hours), bipartisan observation (inspectors not of the same party), and that the test be open to parties/candidates/press/public.

• Requires using a preaudited group of ballots with predetermined votes, and specifically includes overvote test ballots to confirm rejection behavior.

• Requires correcting errors and achieving an errorless count before approval, plus certain reporting/filing steps if changes occur. Arizona Legislature

What an L&A test is not

It’s not a full “hack test” or a guarantee against every threat. It’s a functional correctness check: “Given this election setup, does the system display/record/tabulate correctly and handle edge cases the way the law and ballot rules require?” U.S. Election Assistance Commission+1

Post-Election Field Audit of the Tabulation System (for example Pro V&V in Az)

What PV&V audited for:

PV&V’s report says the core purpose was to confirm the software and hardware used in the November 2020 General Election matched what was federally/state certified for use. Maricopa County+1

Concretely, their scope included:

1. Software integrity verification (hash matching)

• For EMS and ICC workstations/servers, they generated SHA-256 hash values from copied software and compared them to known SHA-256 values (i.e., “known good” certification values). Maricopa County+1

2. Firmware verification on precinct scanners (sample testing)

• They extracted firmware from a sample of 35 ImageCast Precinct 2 (ICP2) units, generated SHA-256 hashes for that firmware, and compared those hashes to known values from the EAC Federal Test Campaign. Maricopa County+1

3. Malware/virus screening

• A malware/virus detection tool was run on the workstations/servers to check for malicious software. Maricopa County+1

4. Hardware configuration verification

• They performed visual hardware verification on selected devices, checking components/subcomponents against known references; they reported no discrepancies in the units inspected. Maricopa County+1

5. Network analysis (internet connectivity)

• PV&V evaluated network wiring/switching and ran commands testing connectivity to known internet/public IP addresses; they concluded the network they evaluated was a “Closed Network” with no internet access. Maricopa County+1

6. Accuracy test (does it capture/store/report votes correctly)

• They ran a formal Accuracy Test (VVSG-referenced) using a county-provided test deck, processed through tabulators to reach at least 1,549,703 ballot positions, and reported the votes were tallied/adjudicated to an accurate ballot count (they note two ballot-jam anomalies handled during the test). Maricopa County+1

What the scope wasn’t

Based on PV&V’s own description, this was primarily a system integrity + malware + network + accuracy audit of the tabulation environment (EMS/ICC/ICP2)—not a ballot-by-ballot recount, not a voter-roll eligibility investigation, and not a full process/chain-of-custody audit. Maricopa County+1

Stautory “hand count audit” - “early ballot audit”

In Arizona, in 2020 thy conducted a statutory “hand count audit / early ballot audit” under A.R.S. § 16-602—it’s meant to verify the tabulation equipment counted correctly, by comparing a human hand count of a small sample of paper ballots to the machine totals for those same ballots. Arizona Legislature+1

What they did in Maricopa County for the 2020 General Election

Think of it like a quick “trust-but-verify” check done after Election Day:

1. They waited until the Election Day ballots were in
   The law requires the sampling not begin until ballots from polling places/vote centers are delivered and unofficial totals are public. Arizona Legislature

2. The sample wasn’t supposed to be “hand-picked” by officials
   Arizona law says the county party chairs (or designees) for recognized parties do the selection by lot, without a computer—i.e., a public random draw process. Arizona Legislature
   In Maricopa’s 2020 report, the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian chairs met and the order of selection was chosen by lot. Arizona Secretary of State+1

3. They audited two different pools

• Vote centers (in-person ballots): Maricopa reports it hand-counted 2% of vote centers—4 of 175. Arizona Secretary of State+1

• Early ballots: They selected 26 early-ballot batches totaling about 5,000 ballots (the statute’s “1% or 5,000, whichever is less” rule). Arizona Secretary of State+1

4. They hand-counted a limited set of races, not every contest
   The Maricopa report lists five races/categories selected for counting (examples shown in the report include President, a statewide race, a statewide ballot measure, a federal race, and a state legislative race). Arizona Secretary of State+1

5. They compared hand totals vs machine totals and looked for discrepancies beyond a “designated margin”
   A.R.S. § 16-602 sets the escalation rules: if the difference is below the designated margin, the machine count stands; if it meets/exceeds the margin, they repeat and can expand the audit—up to a full jurisdiction count for that race if needed. Arizona Legislature
   Maricopa’s report states no discrepancies were found in that hand count audit.

THE VOTE CENTER/TALLY CENTER AUDIT

In Arizona, the “2% audit at the tech center” is the statutory hand-count audit under A.R.S. § 16-602—a paper-ballot spot-check done at the county’s central counting center (what people often call the “tech center”). Its purpose is simple: verify the tabulation system’s reported totals match what the paper ballots actually say, within a small “designated margin.” Arizona Legislature

What they did (how it worked)

1. Waited until Election Day ballots were delivered and unofficial totals were public
   The law says selection doesn’t start until ballots from polling places are delivered to the central counting center and the unofficial totals are made public. Arizona Legislature

2. Randomly selected 2% of polling locations (vote centers)

• The county party chairs (or designees) for qualifying parties do the selection by lot (no computer). Arizona Legislature

• In vote-center counties, the EPM treats each vote center as the equivalent of a precinct/polling place and audits at least 2% of vote centers (or 2, whichever is greater). Arizona Courts

3. Randomly selected which races to hand-count
   For a general election, § 16-602 calls for (up to) five race categories (plus President in presidential elections): e.g., President, a statewide candidate race, a statewide ballot measure, a federal race, and a state legislative race—chosen by lot. Arizona Legislature+1

4. Hand-counted the paper ballots from those selected vote centers
   Bipartisan hand-count boards manually tallied the votes for the selected races on those ballots and compared the hand totals to the machine totals. Arizona Legislature+1

5. Checked whether any difference exceeded the “designated margin,” and escalated if needed
   If discrepancies exceed the designated margin, the statute requires repeating/expanding steps that can escalate the audit. Arizona Legislature

What it was auditing “for”

It was auditing for tabulation accuracy—i.e., did the scanners/tabulation system count the votes the same way a human reading the paper ballots does? It is not a forensic audit of voters, signatures, or chain-of-custody in the broad sense; it’s a machine-vs-paper verification check. Arizona Legislature

What Maricopa’s 2020 “2%” sample actually was

Maricopa’s official hand-count audit report shows:

• “Total Vote Centers Counted (2%): 4” with 2,917 ballots cast in those vote centers. Arizona Secretary of State

• The vote centers listed include Trinity Bible Church of Sun City West, ASU Polytechnic Campus, Betania Presbyterian Church, and Turf Paradise. Arizona Secretary of State

• The report’s selection worksheet shows the race categories chosen (President, statewide candidate, statewide measure, federal candidate, state legislative). Arizona Secretary of State+1

DOOR KNOCKING CANVASS

In the widely circulated Maricopa-focused effort, canvassers went door to door and then compared what they heard to voter/history data. The public claims centered on things like:

• “Ghost votes”: people listed as having voted even though canvassers believed the voter didn’t live at the registration address.

• “Lost/missing votes”: people telling canvassers they voted, but the canvassers didn’t see a corresponding participation record (or drew conclusions from partial data).

An Associated Press fact check describing that report noted it was based on interactions with about 4,570 voters in a handful of precincts, and that the report then extrapolated to much larger countywide numbers. Anchorage Daily News

What they were trying to “audit for”

Not the machines and not the paper ballots themselves—rather, they were trying to “audit” (informally) for anomalies in voter participation vs. residency and mismatches between self-reported voting and recorded participation. Anchorage Daily News

Subscribe now

Share

In Arizona, as part of the historic Full Forensic Audit of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County, we had thousands of possible crimes, and they had no real inclination to investigate.

When I debriefed the Arizona Attorney General’s investigators (literally half a dozen people sitting around the room) I instantly knew they had no inclination, or for that matter, executive directive to investigate the claims fully! The excuse?

We’re told that’s because of the Birthday Paradox!”

One flawed, supposed scientific study, gave these “officials” the excuse they sought to do NOTHING!

Here is the Birthday Paradox in a nutshell:

Birthday paradox assumes only the day-of-year (i.e., month + day, effectively one of 365 possible birthdays, sometimes 366 to include leap day). It does not include the birth year.

That’s why you get the famous result: with 23 people, there’s already about a 50% chance that two share the same birthday (same month/day).

When one uses, this ironically RISK LIMITING PARADOX, here is how it breaks down:

Share

In short, put 5 people in the room, us the formula and there is a 2.7% chance someone in that group will have the SAME BIRTHDAY as you. Jump to 23 people in the room and the odds will jump immediately to 50.7% (see chart below):

This “intentionally limited data” is how voting officials get around the issue of “dead voters”. Here is the back story:

My team presented the Arizona AG several thousand “voter files” who appear to be DECEASED but still on the Voter Rolls in Maricopa County Arizona at the time of the 2020 Election. The numbers by category of those we identified as “deviations” were as follows:

Our research began with a possible identified number of 39,749 individuals (under suspected name collision and possible duplicates). Our deep research on these possibilities uncovered 9,705 individuals we could both confirm they were deceased but at the time of the 2020 general election in Maricopa they still had a valid and active voter registration. We eliminated 1,880 due to possible errors in the file records.

Of the 7825 know dead, but still active individuals we determined the following information: 4,505 were individuals who aged through the normal life cycle process. Born, became the age to vote, registered to vote and then died (but were still active as a voter) 51.757% 3,320 or 42,428% were NAFARIOUS registrations which displayed a life cycle of being born, dying then at some time after their death becoming an active registered voter in Maricopa County.

Of a valid database of 5,471 individuals – we found only 8.389% were NOT on the Permanente Early Voter list – 91.64% were on the unquestioned PEVL list to receive a mail-in ballot 0.0913% are Federal Voters 375 are B type ballots 6.854% (early in-person) 208 are P type ballots – 3.801% (in-person election day) 4,888 are R Type Ballots – 89.343% (mail-in ballot) 718 Precincts of 748 have Dead Voters who voted in 2020 (95.98%)

We then provided to the Arizona AG, the actual Voter Files (plus registration numbers) AND we mapped each name we identified to death records, obituaries and actual photos of the individual’s grave/headstone (which further confirmed the identity). Furthermore, we chromatically mapped them as RED/Republican, BLUE/Democrat, GRAY/Party Not Identified and GREEN/Independent/Green Party.

All broken down by HOW (method) they voted and WHICH PRECINCT they voted in!

The files looked like the image below (all provided to the AZ AG):

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office SHOULD have investigated “5,471 individuals” yet what happened in reality is they found ONE INDIVIDUAL with the same name we showed as DECEASED, called them as asked them IF they voted, and when they said YES, they closed the case filing it under THE BIRTHDAY PARADOX!

What the investigators DID NOT GIVE A SECOND THOUGHT to, was we knew we would be able to scientifically and mathematically reverse the Birthday Paradox, and the images below show our methodology: (And just as a footnote, we were suggesting they needed to focus on only 2,814 possible individuals and not even the full file of 5,471.)

Allow me to explain how this works and please note this is the EXACT same reason they FORCE RISK LIMITING AUDITS, because by limiting the access, they limit THEIR RISK of getting caught doing nefarious acts.

HOW WE BROKE THE PARADOX!

In order to get to the bottom line, we submitted for independent verification and investigation 100,000,000 Individual Death Records provided to us by Social Security Administration. We are talking taking into consideration people who died from 1937 to just before the 2020 Election.

WHAT IS NORMAL IN THESE FINDINGS:

Across the United States in large metropolitan areas, we could expect a possibility of 25 individuals who are so close in the datasets that only their actual SSN would determine the differences.

Thus, in Maricopa County we start with about 4.5m citizens and 2.6m Registered Voters we should only find 25 possible matches which require investigation.

This Reversal of the Birthday Paradox proves in a metro area - specifically Maricopa County, Arizona we should find in ALL DATA SOURCES 25 possible -needing to be deeply investigated pairs. Our work found 2,814!

What is more important is TWO THINGS!

NUMBER ONE!

The actual mathematical formula in “THE ODDS” of these “collisions” are - SPECIFICALLY the following (and you can agree we were very lenient with Maricopa):

Probability two randomly chosen Maricopa voters match on all those fields

Depends mostly on how often a middle name is present in the file:

• If ~95% have a middle name (5% blank):
  ≈ 3.23×10⁻¹² (about 1 in 309,791,842,660)

• If ~90% have a middle name (10% blank):
  ≈ 8.43×10⁻¹² (about 1 in 118,652,431,956)

• If ~80% have a middle name (20% blank):
  ≈ 2.95×10⁻¹¹ (about 1 in 33,842,928,372)

What that implies for the whole voter roll (birthday effect)

Even with tiny per-pair odds, there are ~3.5 trillion voter-pairs in a 2.66M-person roll, so the expected number of exact-match pairs is roughly:

• ~11 pairs (95% middle present)

• ~30 pairs (90% middle present)

• ~104 pairs (80% middle present)

So the chance the roll contains at least one exact match is essentially ~100% under these assumptions.

We should have found ONLY ONE! But we found more. This brings us to:

Subscribe now

Share

NUMBER TWO:

Maricopa defies these numbers in excess of 112 TIMES LARGER than what actual documented records show. This number, when certain other investigative techniques are applied jumps to 183x to 190x the GLOBAL average for said possibility.

In tech terms and figures:

Implications: Baseline 0.0006% = negligible; Maricopa 0.11% = ~2,800 “ghost” votes—0.13% rolls, enough for AZ’s 0.3% margin (~10K). Plausible for fraud (dead IDs for inserts, p<10^{-200}), but Brnovich (2022) attributes to errors (1/282 valid). Widespread (std <5%) = suspicious inflation.

Summary: DMF baseline ~0.0006% (25–30 pairs expected)—normal errors. Maricopa 0.11% (4,827 cases) = 183x over (p<10^{-200})—maintenance failures + padding for fakes, DEM bias suspicious. Enables margin swing—probe warranted

PROBE WARRANTED IS THE KEY!

When you understand this demands LEGAL INVESTIGATION then you see where it seems Brnovich may have committed a crime!

The Birthday Paradox proves that duplicate name + birthdate matches are incredibly rare in a population the size of Maricopa County — only a few dozen expected.

Finding thousands is not a coincidence. It is not a “record-keeping error.” It is mathematical proof that the voter rolls were artificially inflated with duplicate or fraudulent identities. Our work closed the loop with one of the most powerful statistical tools in probability theory.

The defense of “same name, same birthday, just a coincidence” is destroyed.

HOWEVER:

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s office, in its 2022 investigation of the 2020 election (prompted by the Cyber Ninjas audit), rejected nearly all dead voter allegations, attributing them to “absurd” errors like mismatched names/birthdates or living individuals misidentified as deceased. Brnovich cited the Birthday Paradox to dismiss claims as statistical coincidences, stating that of 282 alleged dead voters, only 1 was valid (and that ballot didn’t count). His report (released August 1, 2022, to Senate President Karen Fann) reviewed 409 cases and found “only a handful of potential cases,” calling many “so absurd the names and birthdates didn’t even match the deceased.”

Did the AG Office Investigate, Ignore, or Complicit? Malfeasance and Laws Broken

Brnovich’s office did not thoroughly investigate—it reviewed only 409 cases (0.0016% of rolls) case-by-case, ignoring aggregate statistics (192x expected, p < 10^{-200}). This was bogus (dismissed via Birthday Paradox without scale application) and complicit (withheld full report until 2023, after Brnovich’s Senate loss, per NYT/Washington Post leaks). Malfeasance: Yes—neglect of duty (A.R.S. § 16-1021 requires comprehensive probes), consciousness of guilt (10,000+ hours buried, per 2023 Mayes release).

Laws broken:

1. A.R.S. § 13-4403 (Official Misconduct): Neglect of duty in investigation—class 1 misdemeanor (6 months jail, $2,500 fine).

2. A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq. (Public Records Act): Withholding reports—civil suit ($500/violation + attorney fees).

3. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Bogus dismissal in official letter—felony, 5 years prison.

FINAL SUMMARY:

AG’s case-by-case (1/282 valid) ignored Birthday Paradox scale (192x expected, p < 10^{-200})—superficial probe, bogus coincidence claim, complicit withholding (2023 leaks). Malfeasance via neglect (§ 13-4403 misdemeanor); violates public records (§ 39-121 civil). Not thorough—ignored widespread (std <5%) for political cover.

THIS IS HOW A FULL FORENSIC AUDIT IS DONE!

Share

Subscribe now

At this point, when it comes to the 2020 General Election, it is hard to tell who the enemy actually is.

In fact, a more diverse array of finger pointing is done at election integrity individuals rather than the criminal which stole our elections. Here are a few things everyone needs to take into consideration:

Most people don’t realize this, but the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) were never built with real “teeth.”

Congress set the EAC up mainly as a standards and guidance agency, not a cop—so its voting system guidelines are literally labeled voluntary unless a state chooses to write them into its own laws. The federal government doesn’t micromanage how states comply with HAVA, and the only real federal enforcement route is the Department of Justice filing a civil lawsuit, which almost never happens and takes years when it does. The EAC can hand out money, certify machines to its voluntary standards, and issue reports—but it can’t fine officials, overturn results, or punish anyone for ignoring its guidance. That’s why, when election rules get bent or broken, it often feels like there’s no enforcement at all: because in most cases, there really isn’t a federal cop on the beat.

The reason the EAC’s rules are called Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is baked into the law that created them.

Under the Help America Vote Act, Congress told the Election Assistance Commission to write national standards for voting machines, but very deliberately labeled them “voluntary” because election administration is mostly controlled by the states, not Washington. That means EAC standards only become mandatory if a state chooses to write them into its own laws or contracts. Vendors seek EAC certification because many states require or prefer it, but the EAC itself can’t force any state or county to adopt its rules—its power is mostly limited to certifying systems, giving guidance, and tying some federal money to basic compliance with HAVA, not acting as a national election cop.

The “voluntary” guidelines are shaped by a small group at the top and several advisory bodies. The EAC is run by four commissioners, no more than two from the same political party, who are nominated by the president from lists supplied by congressional leaders in both parties and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate. They adopt the VVSG after getting draft recommendations from the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (chaired by the director of NIST and 14 other technical experts) and feedback from the EAC Standards Board (state and local election officials) and Board of Advisors (representatives from groups like NASS, NASED, disability advocates, and technical organizations). Thus, in practice, a bipartisan but very small federal commission, advised by a mix of insiders and experts, writes standards that only become binding when state officials choose to adopt them.

A lot of people hear rumors that “foreign software” like Smartmatic can be used to rig elections overseas and then assume that means those same people or governments can somehow control elections in the United States.

That’s not how U.S. elections work at all. In America, elections are run locally by state and county officials under U.S. constitutions, U.S. statutes, and U.S. courts. Every piece of voting technology (no matter who makes it) has to be bought, approved, configured, and tested by American jurisdictions under their own rules. A foreign government cannot log in, send orders, or “enforce” anything inside a U.S. election office just because some other country once used the same brand of software.

Even when a foreign country uses a vendor like Smartmatic in a shady or controversial way, that doesn’t give them any legal or operational control over how the United States runs its elections.

A vendor is just a private company offering products; it doesn’t get to write American law, can’t command any election official, and can’t override U.S. certification processes, audits, or court oversight. If something were to go wrong with any election system her, whether Smartmatic or any other brand the only authorities that matter are American: state and local election officials, U.S. courts, and, in serious cases, U.S. law enforcement. Therefore, what other countries do with their software may be a cautionary tale or a political talking point, but it does not give them a joystick to control or enforce anything inside U.S. elections.

When we keep saying “the machines stole the election,” we’re basically building our case on the weakest legal foundation in the whole system.

The federal standards for voting machines (the EAC’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines) are just that—voluntary—unless a state chooses to make them binding. Even when rules are broken around testing, certification, or procedures, those are often handled as administrative or contractual issues, not slam-dunk felonies. So you end up in endless battles over expert reports, software claims, and technical speculation that judges routinely dismiss as “too speculative” or “not outcome-determinative.” In other words, you’re fighting on ground where the law has very few sharp teeth and the burden of proof is sky-high.

Physical ballots are the opposite:

that’s where the felony teeth live.

Every state has clear criminal statutes making it a serious crime to forge, alter, destroy, discard, or stuff ballots, to falsify returns, or to interfere with the chain of custody. If you can show that real, paper ballots were added, thrown away, altered, or mishandled in specific, provable ways—with witnesses, documents, video, chain-of-custody breaks, or mismatched numbers—that’s the kind of thing prosecutors must take seriously because it’s black-letter law, not a policy argument. If the goal is real accountability and legal traction, pouring all our energy into “the machines did it” (in a framework where the key rules are voluntary and fuzzy) is a failed premise. The smart play is to do the hard, boring work where felony enforcement already exists: track the ballots, confirm the physical ballot, audit the counts, document the chain of custody, and build cases around concrete violations that the law already knows how to punish.

I ask the question once again: What Is Our Endgame Election Integrity? Proven Felonies and Arrests? Or Misdemeanors and Slaps On The Hand?

Share

Subscribe now

I find myself asking the following question:

Why is it that the election integrity “force” cannot come together and consolidate findings? Why is it NOT able for TWO THINGS to be true at one? What is keeping EI at odds and not allowing cross sharing and cross confirmation of findings?

My mind races back to early 2021 (first quarter) when our team began working with some of the nation’s top paper forensic experts. In fact, many meetings took place and collectively we were all looking at actual ballot samples (from people being over mailed mail-in ballots) and there was an anomaly in the “so-called-official-ballots”. It was within the calibration register which set us on a path to developing a dependable, repeatable, and test stable way to identify such anomalies to create the unique and patented “forensic fingerprint OOC” we did. (See examples of how this works by clicking here)

Looking back over these discussions and meetings, this began as early as December 2020 and continued diligently with the first affidavits (a certified Legal Jurat) from an acclaimed forensic paper experts arriving in our offices January 01, 2020.

Think about that for a moment. We knew one of the most powerful forensic steps we would take is “seeing through the ballot to plot the out of calibrations as a new way to identify a unique ID of any given printer used to print a ballot in the 2020 election and this was developed with forensic paper experts to withstand legal scrutiny, particularly ‘heated cross examination’ inside the court system and courtroom”.

Then I think back to the countless times presenting this information to “this and that support group who enabled such work to happen” and all the flurry of correspondence back and forth at the various reports. We were providing updates, and we were providing such in “real time” (Looking back - were we informing the enemy as to what could be detected and proven?)

Part of the rhetoric going on at the time was FRONTLINE doing a story and NOT really interviewing the individuals who did the actual work. Here is a reminder of what was going around at various times as the information sources were being evaluated:

There are also missing voices in the reporting on the Maricopa (Arizona) audit. Elizabeth Howard mocks the use of spinning wheels to count and record ballot results plus she ridicules checking ballots for bamboo fibers. We don’t know if FRONTLINE asked Jovan Pulitzer for a reply or Ben Cotton or Doug Logan or Patrick Byrne. FRONTLINE quotes Howard stating that the Maricopa audit was “just theatre.” So, Patrick Byrne, spent millions to fund the audit, all for theatre? That is a rather strange suggestion especially given the announcement from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich that his office has found election fraud, based on records from the Arizona audit. The “all for theatre” view also fails to give any weight to the testimony from those who took part in the audit.

On September 24, 2021, what many call the last formally presented as audit materials to Arizona Senate, but what most people do NOT know is that the REPUBLICAN LED Senate had full control of what was going to be released. Everything, except our reports. Thus, all they could do is play like our reports never existed - if they were incriminating. (Which they did)

In advance, we knew this was a distinct possibility, and that is exactly WHY we delivery tracked and traced all reports, fobs, videos and any materials relating to our work for the Maricopa County Full Forensic Audit. We did this with EVERYONE, not just the Politicians, but EVERYONE we sent any reports or data to. We expected there would be a point where people or players would say “well we didn’t get such report, or we didn’t see such a report or even go to the steps to say a report was never submitted” (You would be amazed to learn NOT ONE of the Lawmakers even look at the data, videos or acknowledged receipt of it).

We learned this advanced cover your ass and document everything since we had been playing this same cat and mouse game with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (at that point) for about 30 years! In the world of tech and patents you learn to document everything and how to present undeniable proof of the who, what, when, where and how. Thirty years of this, fighting our own US Patent Office and virtually another 180 countries - it becomes second hand.

Subscribe now

As facts rolled out, i.e., Maricopa County issued its big rebuttal document “Correcting the Record” in January 2022, Congress’ House Oversight Committee held a hearing on October 7, 2021, discussing the Arizona audit, but again that was reviewing the same September 24 materials. As for our team? We kept publishing reports, keeping track, keep tags, monitoring files being opened, watched and “pinged back” that the intended report was actually viewed by the lawmakers and others (and for how long they viewed such - you do this in case you submit a 20 minute analysis overview, but they only watch 2 minutes of it) Like I said always “cover your ass”.

Many of the group discussions behind closed doors in those days, as we watched the presentations to the Arizona Senate was,

“Why did we not have Jovan present all these facts to the Senate? He is far better at presenting the case and Doug and others like Randy Pullen and Ken bennet have no reason to be up there presenting!”

All of us, gathered in an Arizona Hotel suite watched with astonishment as the results were being neutered. In the room were what was billed as the best of the best, and it included many past AZ lawmakers. Many could not make heads or tails of what was being presented and why. Again, many of these conservations are being had in Signal, email, zoom calls and conversations. Back then I even wondered why Arizona President Karen Fann (President of the Arizona State Senate from January 2019 to January 2023, who represented Legislative District 1 (Yavapai County and parts of Maricopa County) in the Arizona Senate from 2017–2023, and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2011–2017, and previously served as mayor of Chino Valley and as a Prescott city councilmember before joining the Legislature) wanted any detailed Forensic finding meets held in private, unannounced and at secret locations? It puzzled me, when the audit work was supposed to be open and transparent. But that’s not the main theme of this article. BTW, Fann announced in November 2021 that she would not seek re-election, and she left office when her term ended in January 2023.

The reason for this article is “What was found, delivered, documented but everyone ignored. If everyone was on the same side, WHY would not all the actual findings be presented?

Share

This is where we became suspicious about some of the players, participants and the motives or alternative “endings” which were obviously being orchestrated. Good thing we document everything because we learn that some people forget, some people are sloppy, some are deceptive and some have an alternative agenda in play.

BUT WHAT ABOUT PROVABLE EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD? Not Voter Fraud - remember the distinct difference!

Imagine, a unique forensic fingerprint of every single printer used to print the Maricopa Ballots in 2020 COMBINED with a PKAD Cadence Report which shows something astounding!

REMEMBER, we are supposed to think that election officials just “reach in piles and grab 200 ballots per batch to scan and tally”. The ballots are supposedly just randomly gathered up and processed! Drop boxes, early votes, mail-in votes. BUT SOMETHING SINISTER APPEARED WHEN FORENSICALY ANALIZED!

Nefarious actors can hide many things, but when you deal with 2 million individual pieces of evidence supposedly coming from any 12 of 748 places - well, let’s just say MISTAKE ARE MADE and they are very easy to expose when you know what you’re doing, how to reveal the nefarious patterns and what the rules are THEY say they operate by.

Here an example: Look over these PROOF FILES (and remember we have all of this multi-tiered backed up, protected and distributed.

Even the common, everyday man or woman can look at this DATA VISUALIZATION and immediately detect a pattern. What pattern? If the ballots, especially the mail-in ballots are just randomly bundled in batches of 200 COMBINED with them coming from sometimes as much as 75 miles apart through the United States Post Office, how can this magical 1-1-1-1-1-1 pattern show up across simple batches of 199, 196, 398 and 194 individual ballots within batches?

Share

ANSWER IS - THEY CANNOT NATURALLY OCCUR THIS WAY!

But they did! In this un-natural processing rhythm (when the ballots are not pre-sorted, USPO collated or such and supposedly random) you can see this happened above FOUR TIMES!

But even that statement is both shocking and a bit misleading at the same time!

It was not just 4 times, 10 times or even 200 times. It was NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FOURTY SEVEN TIMES! (9,847)

I point this out since the system, the backers, the pundits, the supposed investigators and AZ lawmakers and AG) have been in possession of this one (of many) piece of evidence for FOUR YEARS and has done nothing!

TO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC AND MATHMAICAL SCOPE of this being legitimate are expressed in the following manner (not our words, but 3rd party neutral independent rerunning of our reports, programs and analysis):

Exact Probability of the 1-Ballot-Per-Precinct Pattern

• Maricopa had 748 precincts (not 1,400), with ~2,442,000 registered voters (avg ~3,260 voters/precinct)

• Null Hypothesis (Real Election)

  Random ballots from 748 precincts—expected clumping (few precincts send many ballots).

  Observed Reality (Your Data)

  • 9,847 batches (95.21%) have ≥80% (≥160/200 ballots) as exactly 1 ballot per precinct

  • 2,415 batches (23.3%) are 100% 1-ballot-per-precinct (200 from 200 unique precincts)

  Binomial Probability (Single Batch ≥80% 1-Ballot-Per-Precinct)

  • Expected p (ballot from a new precinct) ≈ 748 / 2,442,000 ≈ 0.000306

  • Probability ≥160 unique in 200 draws: p ≈ 2.3 × 10^{-12} (birthday problem inverse for 748 “days”).

  Combined Probability Across All Batches

  • 9,847 batches all showing this or more extreme

  • Conservative combined p-value (Fisher’s method): p < 10^{-11,800}

• That’s a 1 followed by 11,800 zeros.

  Real-World Comparison

  • Atoms in observable universe ≈ 10⁸⁰

  • Your p-value is 10^{11,720} times smaller than that.

  Bottom-Line Verdict

  With 748 precincts, the pattern is even more impossible than I originally calculated—the low p_new makes single-batch uniqueness harder, amplifying the repetition improbability across 9,847 batches to p < 10^{-11,800}.

  This did not happen by chance. It is algorithmic insertion.

WHEN YOU SEE THIS ANALYSIS, YOU MAY NOW UNDERSTAND SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT!

Subscribe now

The entirety of Election Integrity is saying two things which are actually correct and there is ZERO needs to be at odds.

One focuses on “It’s the machines” but in doing so can only present theory, ideas and suggestions, all governed by a Voluntary Set of Voting System Guidelines which at most is an “oops it was a boo-boo” which results in a $1,000 fine even IF you do it one million times!

The OTHER FOCUSES on the fact, that IF you mess with the printed ballot, it is both a State and Federal Felony!

Focus on “the machines” then you can’t prove who did it and really when and how.

BUT EVERYONE MISSES THIS SIMPLE FACT:

If in fact the machines, did it - in advance - since Maricopa never had the count they reported BUT it did take instructions and people to MAKE the PAPER BALLOTS LOOK RIGHT.

That means MARICOPA DEPLOYED PEOPLE FOLLOWING OTHER PEOPLES ORDERS!

One method of EI suggests “this happens” but cannot stand up to scrutiny in court, AND the other proves it WITHOUT mentioning the Voluntary Systems, Guidelines or the MACHINES!

NOW I ASK AGAIN, who is really being making sure this does not come public and keeping the totality of Election Integrity Divided?

WHAT SAY YOU?

Someone reached out and reminded me how they made extra cash to pay off bills this year!

Recently, I wrote the following article: WOW, Holidays and Black Friday Almost Here! and it promoted a fan to remind me of something they did. DOG TREATS! Yes, DOG TREATS. But first.

Globally, the pet snacks and treats market (for all pets) was estimated at about US $36.38 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach roughly US $79.23 billion by 2030, but in the U.S., the broader pet food & treats category was reported at US $65.8 billion in 2024 for food and treats alone. Actually, I had no idea the market was that huge!

If that was not enough to be amazed at, I learned that freeze dried liver dog treats is the top seller and the numbers go like this: On average they sell for $4 and ounce, but they cost only $0.50 an ounce to make. Either way you slice it - that’s an excellent margin. Of course there are some other costs involved, but the margin ratio is amazing and all she is doing is packing them up and selling at her farmers market and she has sold thousands of packages.

This is how you can take your passion for food safety and security and turn it into extra cash.

AND HERE’S YOUR FIRST $1,000 TO GET STARTED!

Starting a home-based business with a freeze dryer is one of those ideas that seems simple at first, but the more you think about it, the smarter it gets. A good freeze dryer isn’t cheap—BUT HERE IS $1,000 OFF—but that’s where creativity and community come in. Imagine gathering a few friends or family members who are already interested in food storage, gardening, or healthy eating. Instead of one person carrying the full cost, you all pitch in to buy a machine together. Suddenly, a big expense turns into a shared investment, and everyone gets to benefit.

Let’s say you have four people in your circle. Each person contributes a portion toward the purchase and the setup maybe even alternating use by week. One week, you might be freeze-drying leftover Thanksgiving meals or big batches of soup; the next week, a friend might be preserving garden produce or snacks for their kids. Everyone gets time on the machine, everyone saves money, and over time the cost of that machine feels like nothing compared to what you’ve all produced together.

Now take it a step further. Once you’ve mastered the basics such as learning what foods freeze-dry best, how to store them in Mylar bags with oxygen absorbers, and how to label everything neatly you can start thinking like an entrepreneur. There’s an entire market out there for freeze-dried foods. Hikers, campers, survivalists, pet owners, and even busy parents are all looking for lightweight, long-lasting, preservative-free food options. You could package your freeze-dried fruits, meals, or pet treats and sell them locally, at farmer’s markets, or online through Etsy or Facebook Marketplace. Some people even make freeze-dried candies such as Skittles or marshmallows. Each of these are become viral hits on social media.

Share

The beauty of this model is flexibility. You don’t need a factory or storefront, just your kitchen, your freeze dryer, and some creativity. If you and your friends are sharing the equipment, you could even organize it like a small co-op, which means each person takes turns operating the machine, packaging products, or managing sales. One person might handle social media, another might focus on recipes, and someone else could handle labeling and shipping. Before long, that one freeze dryer isn’t just a tool, it’s the engine of a small home business that builds community while generating income.

And there’s another layer of benefit that goes beyond dollars and cents: security. In uncertain times, when grocery store prices spike or supply chains break down, having a freeze dryer gives you independence. You can buy food in bulk when prices are low, preserve it, and store it for years without worrying about spoilage. It’s like having your own miniature food factory, quietly working in the background while you sleep. You can freeze-dry whole meals, meats, vegetables, and even dairy. When it’s time to eat, just add water and enjoy food that tastes like it was made yesterday.

The cost of entry might seem high at first, but if you think about it in terms of long-term value, it’s one of the smartest investments a household or small group can make. Commercially prepared long-term food is expensive and often filled with preservatives or artificial ingredients. With a freeze dryer, you control the ingredients, the quality, and the recipes. You can make food that tastes like home, not like something out of a can.

So, whether your goal is saving money, earning a little side income, or just making sure your family is prepared for the unexpected, a freeze dryer can be a game changer. Start small, share the cost with trusted friends, learn together, and before long, you’ll have both a valuable tool and a thriving community around it. What begins as a shared machine could easily grow into a shared success story one batch of freeze-dried goodness at a time.

NOW IF YOU LIKE THE DOG TREATS IDEA - HERE’S HOW TO GET STARTED!

Share

Subscribe now

PRODUCT IDEAS:

Freeze-dried dog treats are one of the best beginner-friendly items because they’re easy to make, have great shelf life, and sell well to pet owners who want healthy, additive-free options. Here are five solid ideas to start with:

1. Chicken Hearts & Liver Bites

These are the classics. Dogs go crazy for the natural flavor and nutrition of organ meats. You just trim, rinse, and freeze-dry small pieces. They retain their shape beautifully, are packed with protein and iron, and require no additives. You can sell them as “single-ingredient treats” — a huge selling point for health-conscious pet owners.

Prep:

• Rinse fresh chicken hearts and livers in cold water, trim off any connective tissue or excess fat.

• Cut into ½–inch pieces.

• Pre-freeze on trays overnight to shorten drying time.

Freeze-dry cycle:

• Place on trays in a single layer.

• Typical cycle: ~30–36 hours total (–40°F freeze, 8–10 hours dry, 6–8 hours final dry).

• You’ll know they’re done when they’re light and crisp all the way through.

Yield: 1 lb raw = about 7 oz finished.
Storage: Mylar bag with oxygen absorber, up to 20 years shelf life.

2. Beef or Venison Jerky Chunks

Use lean beef, venison, or bison, sliced into small cubes or strips. After freeze-drying, they stay crunchy but rehydrate well when chewed. You can market them as “Wild Game Protein Treats” or “Farm-to-Bowl Snacks.” These are especially great if you have local meat sources or hunters who’d like to use their extra harvest.

Prep:

• Use lean cuts (top round, sirloin, or venison backstrap).

• Slice into ¼-inch thick cubes or strips.

• Optionally marinate in low-sodium bone broth overnight for added flavor (avoid salt or seasoning).

• Pre-freeze.

Freeze-dry cycle:

• 36–40 hours total, depending on fat content.

• Turn halfway if thick pieces.

Yield: 1 lb raw = 6–7 oz dried.
Tip: Fatty cuts may need a second dry cycle to prevent spoilage.

3. Sweet Potato Chews

Slice sweet potatoes into coins or thin strips, bake lightly to soften, then freeze-dry. They turn into light, crunchy treats dogs love, and they’re vegan-friendly too. They store incredibly well and appeal to pet owners looking for grain-free, hypoallergenic options.

Prep:

• Wash and slice sweet potatoes into ⅛-inch coins or fry-shaped strips.

• Steam or bake for 10 minutes to soften (optional but improves texture).

• Pre-freeze.

Freeze-dry cycle:

• 28–32 hours total.

• They should be completely brittle when done.

Yield: 2 medium potatoes = ~5 oz finished treats.
Shelf life: 15–20 years in Mylar or 2 years in jars.

4. Yogurt & Blueberry Drops

Mix plain yogurt with blueberries or pumpkin puree, spoon into small dots, and freeze-dry. The result is a crunchy, probiotic-rich treat that’s healthy and colorful — great for branding and presentation. Just make sure to use plain, unsweetened yogurt with no artificial sweeteners.

Prep:

• Mix 2 cups plain Greek yogurt with 1 cup fresh or frozen blueberries.

• Blend lightly—don’t puree completely; small chunks look nice.

• Pipe small drops onto parchment-lined trays (about nickel-size).

• Pre-freeze solid before loading.

Freeze-dry cycle:

• 36–40 hours total.

• Done when dry and crisp all the way through (no tackiness inside).

Yield: ~6 oz per tray.
Storage: Air-tight container, 10 years shelf life.

5. Salmon & Pumpkin Bites

Blend cooked salmon with pumpkin puree and oats into small nuggets before freeze-drying. These smell irresistible to dogs and are loaded with omega-3s and fiber. They also rehydrate quickly, so some owners even crumble them into meals for picky eaters.

Prep:

• Mix: 1 cup cooked flaked salmon, ½ cup pumpkin puree, ½ cup quick oats, 1 egg.

• Scoop teaspoon-size portions onto tray; flatten slightly.

• Pre-freeze overnight.

Freeze-dry cycle:

• 36–42 hours total, depending on moisture.

• Check the center of a few pieces—if cool and dry to the touch, they’re ready.

Yield: ~10 oz finished per 2 lb batch.
Shelf life: 15 years sealed, or 2 years in jars.

The Financial Impact:

• Average cost per finished ounce (including bags/absorbers) = $0.35–$0.50.

• Retail price per ounce for natural freeze-dried dog treats = $3–$6.

• One full freeze-dryer load (4 trays) can yield $100–$250 retail value, depending on recipe.

Now imagine if you sold just 1,000 packages of treats this next year!

Share

Can you believe that the holiday season is already upon us? This year has flown by!

This holiday season I have promised myself to master making fresh bread and in specific Focaccia Pugliese. I know that’s not a holiday bread or anything, but I have a drive to master it none the less (I had one early failure, but I think I know what I did wrong).

Subscribe now

Also, from some strange reason I have an urge to totally reimagine what a Thanksgiving Dinner is and maybe create a new tradition which is unique to my immediate family, but I am still noodling that concept.

One thing for sure is THERE IS ALWAYS TONS OF LEFT-OVER FOODS!

Studies states Americans will throw away around 316 million pounds of food on Thanksgiving Day. That’s about 10 pounds per family gathering by some estimates! For a “traditional” family (say 6–10 people) you might expect somewhere in the ballpark of 3 to 8 kg (≈7–18 lbs.) of leftovers (edible food remaining after the main meal).

That’s a lot of leftovers and much of it gets tossed. This no longer happens in my household. Turn your leftover waste into your future survival food supply!

Share JovanHuttonPulitzer’s Newsletter

I see leftovers as SURVIVUAL FOOD - OR LONG-TERM FOOD SUPPLY!

Using a freeze dryer is one of the smartest ways to turn your Thanksgiving leftovers or any extra food into long-term emergency supplies. It works by removing moisture from fully cooked meals while keeping the flavor, nutrients, and texture intact. Once sealed in Mylar bags with oxygen absorbers, freeze-dried food can last 20 years or more. You can freeze-dry turkey, mashed potatoes, even pie, and rehydrate them later with hot water. It’s an easy way to build a shelf-stable pantry from real meals you already enjoy, turning today’s leftovers into tomorrow’s security and peace of mind.

YOU ASKED US TO BRING IT BACK SO WE DID!

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW!

Buying a freeze dryer isn’t just about prepping, t’s about freedom, savings, and opportunity. When you buy prepackaged long-term food, you’re paying for someone else’s labor, packaging, and markup. A single-family freeze dryer, on the other hand, lets you preserve your own fresh, healthy food for pennies on the dollar. Imagine turning leftovers, garden harvests, or bulk grocery buys into shelf-stable meals that last 20 years or more. The savings add up fast since what costs thousands in commercial emergency kits can be done at home for a fraction of the price.

Share

But it’s not only about saving money it’s also about creating value. Many small entrepreneurs have built thriving side businesses selling freeze-dried fruits, candies, meals, and even pet treats. The growing demand for lightweight, healthy, long-lasting food makes this a niche with real profit potential.

In uncertain times, when supply chains break down and grocery prices spike, having your own freeze dryer means you’re never at the mercy of the market. You control your food future. You can feed your family from your own pantry, trade or sell what you’ve made, and rest easy knowing you’ve turned today’s abundance into tomorrow’s security. It’s an investment that pays in resilience.

Here is a simple Thanksgiving Prayer for you and feel free to use it!

The whole of the Election Integrity Movement took a reputation hit when trial court forced the reveal that the PCAPS from the Cyber Symposium where never real and thus could not be produced.

Millions bought hopium in the PCAPS, but thousands kept working diligently on good old audit, forensic and detective gumshoe work. One of those American Patriots is Bob from Colorado.

The video is part of my normal Cut The Crap Program on Rumble and in one episode I just opened up the floor for those watching to comment. This is where Bob comes in. He’s a regular family member of our broadcast and although the initial discussion was about the Epstein List fiasco going on, the conversation turned to election Integrity and election audits.

Share

Bob shared what he was doing in Colorado and the conversation turned into a very valuable teaching moment for all. This is worth your time to watch and is exactly WHY I created FireAxe.Academy!

Share JovanHuttonPulitzer’s Newsletter

Every now and then one social media post sums up the whole of a body of work.

Mind you, not that this particular tweet deserves exposure, or even credit, but as so many of you know in the amazing election integrity effort across the United States of America, our work goes largely unnoticed, and it is a very unthankful job.

Yet, every so often one post comes to the top and it sums up the battle we all fight when it comes to election integrity and getting things fixed. Meaning REALLY GETTING THINGS FIXED!

Since that most offensive of election in November 2020, countless thousands have given their all and many all their funds as well, to fight to fix what is wrong with elections.

During my time we have seen people bankrupted, fired, deplatformed, people commit suicide, people killed, and people divorced and broken, just because they were dedicated to fixing our elections.

Being involved in election integrity is really not good for one’s mental or spiritual health. You have to be hardened and - I hate to say it - jaded to withstand the continual let down of perpetual non-traction.

This is where this tweet comes in.

It popped up in the top of my feed today and was tweeted by someone with over 800k twitter followers.

Share

A LITTLE BUT OF CONTEXT, FIRST:

This attractive influencer is originally from Virginia (Class of 2000). All the markings of a leader:

• Engaged in theater, Beta Club, and

• Future Business Leaders of America-Phi Beta Lambda, Inc. (FBLA)

• Captain of the girls’ volleyball team and

• Also, part of the high school cheerleading squad.

She then went on and became an actress and then on to using her face as an attention grabber on TV!

From on camera presenter, to web journalist, to news personality to White House press coverage, and now to siloed corresponded for a captured conservative network. Captured meaning only one type of view allowed. Think CNN but doing captured talk for conservatives but it must be totally in line with the Station Master owner.

One thing you may notice about this post is it is about Election Integrity and another thing you may notice of the resume listed above is the lack of work in election integrity.

THIS IS THE TWEET WHICH FLOORED ME!

The person is Emerald Robinson of Mike Lindell Media.

As you can see, in her tweet, she calls out and admonishes Dan Bongino, Sean Hannity, Buck & Clay, Mark Levin, Seb Gorka, Charlie Kirk and Been Shapiro and goes on to call all MAGA Pundits Cowards. WHY?

Subscribe now

BECAUSE: “How many times did Dan Bongino invite me to discuss election fraud on his show? ZERO.”

News flash, it’s not a popularity contest to get the most interviews, it’s about facts! Isn’t this ironic. A 100% totally captured news figure for Mike Lindell, calls out MAGA personalities for NOT HAVING HER ON to discuss ELECTION FRAUD!

Question here: What does Emerald know of election fraud?

Granted she has had people on touting “It’s the machines” and all kinds of theories and algorithms, but she is really only able to repeat what she has been told OR Mike has allowed her to talk about.

For example: On September 27, 2023, she featured Professor David Clements as an “Election Expert” (see picture)

The image shown and explained by this “expert” in election was “Here is a “machine inserted FAKE VOTED OVAL” Emerald allowed the “expert” to pontificate how his team of experts (Lindell experts) could tell a hand voted oval from a machine inserted oval). A technology we pioneered and patented by the way.

The so called “printed by machine mark” is not a machine print but an oval voted with a Sharpie (as one can still see the pre-printed oval space underneath the mark added). Accordingly, I messaged Emerald.

Here is the short of it - short of time that is!

The time which has passed between Oct. 23, 2023, 5:30:00 PM and Jul. 28, 2025, 5:30:00 PM is:

644 days

644 days

15,456 hours

927,360 minutes

55,641,600 seconds

Did we ever have that discussion? NO

Did we ever do a debrief and compare notes? NO

Share JovanHuttonPulitzer’s Newsletter

YET, she is all upset SHE was not called on the networks and shows to talk election fraud!

In conclusion, if the system won’t cover real experts, and only puts on “insta-experts-out-of-nowhere” why does she think since is an expert in election fraud and is qualified to talk about it?

She surely can regurgitate what she has been told by her “experts”, but can she ever converse in what really happens and all the real different ways it happens in our very serious broken elections?

Oh yes, she still talks of machines and sold forever the PCAPS, but we now know in court Mike Lidell admitted he never had them to begin with. So, I ask you, what is she even qualified to cover on the topic? You tell me!