Their Biographies, Issue Positions, Voting Records, Public Statements, Ratings and their Funders.

Issues of the Day

Floor Speech

Date: Nov. 20, 2020
Location: Washington, DC


Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting week. Not a lot of critical votes have taken place. It was more of an organizational week we have had here. At the same time, the country's election hangs in the balance.

I think it is important to take a step back in history, though. It is very interesting when you look back and see what things have happened in the past that maybe affected our future.

Here is an article from Republican _ Michigander published by RedState:

Don't let Soros and the ``Secretary of State Project'' take over your State.

In 2010, the Secretary of State Project is so far targeting Michigan, California, Iowa, South Dakota, Ohio, and Minnesota. This post is Michigan specific, but look at the list of donors to a State level Michigan downticket race. Chances are this is happening in your state, too.

The article says:

You know comrades, says Stalin, that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this--who will count the votes, and how. That is from Boris Bazhanov's, ``Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary.''

Boss Tweed says, As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?

Some of the most overlooked and ultra-important positions in this state, talking about Michigan, are those who run the elections. Those are the county clerk, township/city clerk, and the secretary of state's office. It takes the work of these offices and their staffs to run the elections and make sure the process is above board--and, again, this is 10 years ago, 2010--competent, and with integrity. Livingston County does a great job with its Bureau of Elections. While these positions shouldn't be politicized, at least when it comes to elections, they are in a big way, and this politicization is coming to Michigan.

Some people don't like it when their boys don't make the rules of the game. First and foremost is the benefactor of the Democrats, convicted insider trader George Soros, the man who broke the Bank of England. Much like his counterparts at Goldman Sachs, he makes a killing off of speculating, and what better way of doing that than by controlling elections. Other rich leftist democrats also wanted to get their people elected in their attempt to control our lives.

Their project is called the Secretary of State Project. Its goal is to get their type of democrats in charge, and then look the other way when ACORN and PIRG to commit voter fraud, rigging the election for the democrats.

They had some success in 2006. . . .

And people can go online and find back in 2006 a report that George Soros and Democrats were going to be funding elections and selections of people, who would be involved in counting the votes in important places.

Most of us didn't pay much attention to that. I know in Texas I thought, well, we are Texas. We elect Republican Governors, and they appoint our Secretary of State, so we are safe from this effort by the Soros Democrats.

What I didn't think about back in 2006 and 2010 was the fact that county clerks are really responsible for the vote counting in their county. In most of east Texas, west Texas, south, and the Panhandle, if a county clerk and her or his staff did not do the counting of the ballots, we might get upset and vote them out. But in our biggest cities, biggest counties, like Dallas, Harris County where Houston is, Austin area, San Antonio area, they hire firms that come in, some of which we find out had Soros-type money that helped start these things. Maybe it is his, maybe it wasn't, maybe it was through Open Source or Tidewater, different groups that launder the money through different organizations, so it is hard to tell where it really came from, but we know it is people that wanted to control elections that got involved in deciding who would be in charge of counting the votes. Just like brother Stalin and brother Boss Tweed, they had figured out it doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes.

So this article goes on. This is 2010. FOX News reported: ``Since 2006 the Democracy Alliance, a left leaning influence group funded by George Soros among others, has had remarkable success in targeting and claiming Secretary of State's offices in 11 of 13 critical States they targeted, including Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa.

``Called the Secretary of State Project (SOSP) its aim is to target and capture the obscure, often overlooked office and implement election rules changes that give democrats a better chance of winning a plurality. Among those changes that the Secretary of State Project calls `election protection,' are a loosening of voter registration requirements and a lessening of efforts to prevent fraudulent voting, according to Matthew Vadum, a political analyst with the Capital Research Center.

`` `The thing that is amazing is that they can get the office for as little as $100,000 in campaign funding because no one pays attention to it, and they get to control election opportunities in a State. It is cheap,' Vadum said. He said SOSP is currently targeting three States in the 2010 election: California, Michigan, and Minnesota. In total they count for 82 electoral votes.

``Vadum says that because of chaos and demoralization the Republican Party has not formulated a response to the Secretary of State Project or tried to match their efforts.''

That was 2010. We did not learn. And those campaigns, the project, had a profound effect.

``Brunner has been a disaster in Ohio, unless you are trying to rig the game for the dems. There was tons of shadiness in Ohio for the 2008 election. The good news about Brunner is that she is running for U.S. Senate where she can do less damage, even if she wins.

``Brunner made news in October 2008 when she declined to hand over to county election boards 200,000 names on voter registration forms where the drivers license or Social Security number on the forms did not match the name. The Secretary of State Project praised her actions.''

This is another report: ``Blackwell's office was one of the first and most critical offices claimed by the Secretary of State Project. He was succeeded in 2006 by Jennifer Brunner, who received $167,000 in campaign contributions from the Secretary of State Project, and immediately began a complete overhaul of Ohio's voting system. Among the changes she made were allowing election day registration and the failure to purge election rolls of ineligible and dead voters.''

As Lyndon Johnson famously told his campaign manager:

No, sir. This man has every bit as much right to vote as anybody else in this cemetery.

Back to the article. ``Her most memorable moment was when a Federal court judge ruled that she had violated Federal law for `not taking adequate steps to validate the identity of newly registered voters.' At the time she admitted that there were `discrepancies' in about 200,000 new registrations but refused to allow polling workers to take action on the questionable ballots.''

Mr. Speaker, if someone begins to see a pattern--gee, this was 2010. I didn't wake up until late in 2018. But this went on around the country, getting people in positions that they would be responsible for counting the votes and making rules, though that is supposed to be left to the legislature of each State, according to the Constitution, making rules as to what votes count and what votes don't.

Going back to the article. ``When Jennifer Brunner defeated incumbent Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2006, 12 of the 18 individuals who contributed the maximum $10,000 to Brunner's campaign resided in States other than Ohio. (One of these donors, incidentally, was Teresa Heinz Kerry.) Said Brunner, `I received significant support from the Secretary of State Project, which helped me toward the election.'

``Brunner went on to make her influence felt in the 2008 election cycle, when she ruled that Ohio residents should be permitted, during the designated early-voting period extending from late September to early October, to register and vote on the very same day. Citing the potential for voting fraud under such an arrangement, Republicans objected. But on September 29 of that year--the day before early voting was scheduled to commence--the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Brunner's decision.''

I thank the Ohio Supreme Court for their contribution to voter fraud; and not to leave out our wonderful Chief Justice John Roberts, who similarly ruled, in effect:

So what. There is fraud maybe, maybe not. I am not going to do anything about it. Thank you very much.

``In a separate matter, Brunner sought to effectively invalidate a million absentee-ballot applications that Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's campaign had issued. Each of those applications had been inadvertently printed with an extra, unnecessary checkbox, and Brunner maintained that if a registrant failed to check the box--even if he or she signed the form--the application could be rejected. On October 2, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned Brunner's directive on grounds that it served `no vital purpose or public interest.' ''

I mean, after all, it was John McCain; he was going to be beat, so we will let that one go.

``Brunner's most noteworthy claim to fame took place in October 2008, when she refused to provide county election boards approximately 200,000 voter-registration forms in which the name did not match the driver's license or Social Security number.

``Count the dems, and reject the GOP votes. Boss Tweed would be proud. That is what the Secretary of State Project wanted, and what they got.

``Mark Ritchie was the Secretary of State who certified Al Franken's win on a recount. He was a Secretary of State Project candidate and here is the result.

``(Mary) Kiffmeyer is `absolutely sure' that Ritchie's efforts to eliminate voting regulations ensured Franken's victory.

`` `The first thing he did when he got into office was to dismantle the ballot reconciliation program we started. Under that program districts are required to check that the number of ballots issued by matching them with the number of ballots cast,' she said, `that way we know immediately that the vote count is accurate.'

`` `But that isn't what happened,' she said. `We now have 17,000 more ballots cast than there are voters who voted and no way to determine what went wrong. Why anyone would eliminate that basic check, I don't know,' she said.''

Well, she doesn't know, but some of us know exactly why you eliminate that check to make sure the vote counting is accurate, because that way you can have 17,000 people who didn't vote cast votes. And, obviously, there are people that have lost with a whole lot less than 17,000 votes on the other side.

``The Vadum guy quoted earlier was Matthew Vadum. He is one of the main guys at Capital Research, a good organization that has tracked the shadiness of these foundations and similar groups for years. He wrote a good piece in The American Spectator about the Franken-Coleman race and its Secretary of State.

``Both Franken and Obama, by the way, were endorsed by ACORN Votes, ACORN's federal political action committee.

``Minnesota's secretary of state isn't a Democrat by happenstance.

``Ritchie, who defeated two-term incumbent Republican Mary Kiffmeyer in 2006, received an endorsement and financial assistance for his run from a below-the-radar nonFederal `527' group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn't have to disclose them publicly until well after the election.

``The founders of the Secretary of State Project, which claims to advance `election protection' but only backs Democrats, religiously believe that right-leaning secretaries of state helped the GOP steal the presidential elections in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (Ken Blackwell).

``The secretary of state candidates the group endorses sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans, cleansing the dead and fictional characters from the voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy-hating Fascist.

``Most media reports also leave out the fact that Ritchie has extensive ties to the controversial in-your-face direct action group, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), whose employees have been implicated in electoral fraud time and time again.''

Which is another reason ACORN doesn't exist. They were driven out of existence because of illegality and fraud, and it sounds like they just melded into other groups that were trying to do the same things ACORN did before being disbanded.

Going back to the article. ``In 2006, the Minnesota ACORN Political Action Committee endorsed Ritchie and donated to his campaign. According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, contributors to Ritchie's campaign included liberal philanthropists George Soros, Drummond Pike, Deborah Rappaport, along with veteran community organizer Heather Booth, a Saul Alinsky disciple who cofounded the Midwest Academy, a radical ACORN clone. One article on Ritchie's 2006 campaign website brags about the fine work ACORN did in Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to raise that State's minimum wage.

``ACORN got their man in. Their man made sure Stuart Smalley became a senator. The good news is that Mark Ritchie is running for reelection in Minnesota. Hopefully, the good people there throw his sorry rear out.

``But closer to home, the Secretary of State Project wants their own Mark Ritchie or Jennifer Brunner right here in Michigan. Her name is Jocelyn Benson. What are Benson's credentials?

``Benson is a native of Philly, well known for vote fraud.''

In 2010, this article is being written. Philly, well known for vote fraud. Don't we know.

``She went to Harvard Law. I have seen enough damage done by Harvard Law politicians like Obama and Granholm to refuse to back anyone who went there for political office. In 2004, for the democrats, she ran the poll challenging/poll watching programs for the DNC. They want the fox guarding the henhouse. She is also a protege of Jennifer Brunner. Yes, that Brunner. She was recently endorsed (before dems convention) by the SEIU, the most far left of the union leadership.

``The Blog Prof has been on the case researching Benson with posts here and here.

``In order to ensure that elections are fair, conducted with integrity, and legitimate, Jocelyn Benson and her friends at Secretary of State Project MUST be defeated by any legal means necessary. We must keep ACORN, PIRG-IM, Soros, MoveOn.org, and the rest of those groups out of the Secretary of State office here.

``We will be keeping a close eye on this race. . . .''

But nonetheless, that again, that was 2010, and then they go on to list lots of liberal Democrats supporting the Secretary of State Project, at least 250 of the 1,600.

But then here is another article from February of 2010, FOX News, Ed Barnes: ``States' Secretaries of State Are Tipping the Balance of Power.''

``In 2000, it was Katherine Harris, the secretary of state of Florida, who made critical decisions that helped swing the State Republican.

``In 2004, it was Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state, who earned democratic wrath for ensuring a close Republican win.

``In 2008, it was the secretary of state of Minnesota, Mark Richie, who handed that State's Senate seat to Al Franken and control of Congress to the Democrats.

``In every major election since 2000, secretaries of state have emerged as key, often decisive, and partisan figures in the outcomes of those ballot battles.

``And just last week in Massachusetts, there was cause of concern that the upset victory by Scott Brown could be compromised by that State's secretary of state, who has to certify the results.

``According to Professor Robert Pastor of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, the situation has gotten so bad that the partisan roles of the secretaries of states in the election process are undermining the faith of Americans in the election process.

`` `After the 2000 election, partisanship in the office accelerated. It has skewed enough elections since then that a sufficient number of Americans should be concerned,' he said. `We are worse than many Third World countries' in holding fair and nonpartisan elections.''

And, again, that is February 2010 that this was written.

``And now there is a quiet, below-the-radar but major effort to target secretary of state offices in order to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.

``Since 2006, the Democracy Alliance, a left-leaning influence group funded by George Soros among others, has had remarkable success in targeting and claiming secretary of state's offices in 11 of 13 critical States they targeted, including Ohio, Minnesota and Iowa.

``Called the Secretary of State Project, SOSP, its aim is to target and capture the obscure, often overlooked office and implement election rules changes that give Democrats a better chance of winning a plurality.''

So, on that goes, and it covers some of the same ground as the last article.

But it is amazing, though, the brilliant strategy--you know, if you don't mind fraud--the brilliant strategy of targeting secretaries of state, and in States like Texas where the secretary of state is appointed by a Republican Governor--has been for years--you go after the county clerks and make sure you have got good, stout Democrats who will hire firms funded, started by Democrat-leaning organizations so that they can work the system.

Now, I mentioned earlier, I didn't wake up on how serious this effort, this brilliant effort by people on the far left was until I saw evidence of manipulating the results in Dallas County by the firm--and if I recall correctly, that may have been one of the Canadian-started firms. It has been a while, but they were hired to come in.

And think about it. If you wanted to manipulate the outcome of an election, you get your person in to hire a firm where people could be trained to manipulate the vote.

And say you had early voting, like Dallas, like every place in Texas had, and each precinct turns in a flash drive with the votes on the flash drive to the person heading up the Democrat firm--Democrat-funded firm that then has from Friday night until Tuesday night to play with those returns.

And there were clear indications that in 2018, in the primary, that the early voting counts were manipulated.

They made some mistakes. But, you know, they were just getting this thing down, trying to figure out how to do it without being caught, so they made some silly blunders that made very evident the fact that they had manipulated numbers in the primary.

By the general election of 2018 in Dallas County, they got better about hiding it, but when you have got brilliant people who are looking into it, it is easier. I mean, those manipulations can be found and were found, and the information was offered to the Texas attorney general, whom I personally urged multiple times over the past 2 years: You have got to get on top of this, because the manipulations that we saw in Dallas County need to be exposed. People need to be indicted, and people need to go to jail for stealing elections or, at least, manipulating elections, and that way we can ensure a fair vote nationally in 2020.

Apparently, our attorney general was preoccupied by other things, so he never got around to getting a warrant, which I believe it sure looked like probable cause evidence sufficient to get a warrant to seize the vote counting equipment used in 2018.

As I understand, that has all been destroyed by now. The opportunity was missed by the Texas attorney general's office to seize those with a warrant and show for the world exactly how manipulations were done. It is a lost opportunity.

And, of course, since we have a Director of the FBI who has shown more of an interest--he was put there to clean up the FBI of the massive abuse at the top, not necessarily demonstrated around the country. We have got a lot of great FBI agents around the country, but right here in Washington, I have seen the corruption firsthand. I have seen manipulation of the truth. I have seen FBI agents who lied about what they found and what they did in order to prevent people from being prosecuted that should have been.

I have seen deals made like with Cheryl Mills: Gee, you let us--we have got plenty of evidence to get a warrant and seize your computer, but if you will just let us look, we promise not to make copies of anything. We promise that we will give it back, and we promise, under this agreement, you can't be prosecuted for anything that we find--and then giving the evidence back that could have been seized with a warrant, allowing that individual to sit in on the questioning of a potential target, though Mills could have been a target herself.

These are the kinds of things that have given people across America the wrenching questions: Why has nobody gone to jail on that side of the political aisle?

And that is a good question, and the answer is heartbreaking.

If we don't enforce the rule of law, especially in something as critical as elections, then we have known for some time we were going to be headed in the direction of a Third World government. And that is apparently what we have got in this election.

It could still be saved. The good thing for those involved in fraud in this last election is that you have a lot of Republicans who say: Look, we just want people to get along. You know, it is unpleasant when you talk about fraud in an election.

Well, yeah, it is because it will mean the end of this little experiment in self-government. So, yeah, that is unpleasant to talk about. But if we don't clean up the process in this election, then there will be no free and fair future elections.

As a judge handling felonies, it was made clear in the short school we went to upon becoming judges, and then it was made abundantly clear--anybody who just kept researching the law, trying to follow the law--that there are two critical types of deterrents that can ensure a brighter future for a self-governing country.

One is general deterrence. There needs to be treatment of lawbreakers, in this case, people who have been involved in the fraud, to such an extent that the general public would not be tempted to engage in the fraudulent conduct. But that would be a deterrent. It would scare them out of participating.

That is what I had hoped if our Texas attorney general's office had pursued the fraud that we knew of in Dallas County from the 2018 elections. There could have been general deterrents.

And then, also, there are specific deterrents for the person engaged in the fraud, and that is you have a sentence strong enough that would deter the individual criminal from engaging in such conduct in the future that they would want to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law so they did not end up with another sentence like they got in that case.

The problem for both general and specific deterrents, when it comes to voter fraud over recent years, is there has been no deterrence. There were a number of indictments issued in specific places, including the Gregg County commissioner, Democrats involved and others, but none involving the big frauds that would change a national election.

So that has been really tragic to see the missed opportunities. But those of us who never stop studying history know that this is one of those lessons that gets--that is failed to be learned over and over, that brings about the end to republics.

Of course, in the first great republic, the Roman Republic, they had tried to learn lessons from the democracy of Athens, and they did. But soon things degenerated. The leadership was absent.

Caesar, as head of the military, did something that was illegal, crossed the Rubicon, and that was the end of the republic. Though senators still continued to be elected, by that point, it was a lost cause.

So I am looking here at an affidavit by Mellissa Carone, and something that many in the news media have not understood, and that is that when you say an allegation is unfounded, it means there is no evidence, a no evidence point, as appellate courts would call it. And when there is somebody who has risked going to jail for perjury and sworn to being a witness to fraud, then whether you like the evidence or not, that is evidence. It is not unfounded. It is evidence.

There are hundreds of affidavits that have been produced--maybe thousands. Some witnesses really don't have anything helpful, speculative suggestions, and those are not real evidence because they have no direct knowledge. It is kind of like the whistleblower--so- called whistleblower--who had no direct knowledge and no direct evidence. Well, that is not evidence if it would not be admissible in court. But if somebody has taken an oath and stated they witnessed fraudulent conduct, that is evidence. In some cases, the testimony is the creating of an environment in which fraud could occur and then seeing indications that fraud had occurred.

As someone once said about circumstantial evidence--I know some people say that you can't convict somebody on circumstantial evidence. Oh, yes. It is done all the time. This particular law student gave an example: If I am driving by Baylor Stadium, I can't see what is going on inside the stadium. But I know it is the time that a game was supposed to happen between Baylor and another team, and I can see the scoreboard and both of those teams are listed on the scoreboard. There is time that is clicking down, and there are scores, and there is the roar of the crowd, and I see the score change. I don't have direct evidence there is a football game going on, but when you look at all the circumstances, then clearly that is circumstantial evidence that a football game is going on.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you have evidence of all the circumstances and then outcomes that show this could not have happened without some misconduct or some gross negligence, then you have got significant evidence.

This affidavit by this witness talks about the Dominion training, and this witness was hired, contracted, by Dominion Voting Services to perform IT work at the TCF Center in Detroit for the November 3, 2020, election. This person is a resident of Michigan.

It says:

During both shifts that were worked, I witnessed extreme irregularities in ballot counting, ballot fabrication/ completion and data security.

Now, that is a summary, and again, not necessarily direct evidence, since we don't have any specifics.

But the affidavit goes on:

Improper counting protocol was prevalent during both shifts. It appeared the majority of people who manned the scanners or the counters were either untrained, poorly trained. They kept jamming machines and rescanning certain stacks of ballots. The proper procedure was to run a batch, a stack of 50 ballots through the tabulator and each ballot counted only once. When a jam happened, the computer would issue an error message indicating what number of the ballot stack had jammed the tabulator. At that point, the counter had two options: manually discard the batch on the tabulator and rescan it, or to continue scanning from the jammed ballot through the end of the batch.

Countless times, as I floated on the floor to assist with the jammed tabulators, I saw workers rescan entire batches of ballots without first discarding that very same partially scanned batch. I witnessed entire ballot batches rescanned multiple times.

Many Dominion employees were hired like me to un-jam the tabulator machines throughout the counting process. The jams and rescans of batches of ballots without the deletion of the scanned partial batches of ballots prior to each rescan was quite disturbing.

At about midnight I was assisting one of the counters with a paper jam. I noticed his machine had a count of more than 400 ballots scanned in that particular batch. This was unusual, to say the least, because only one lot of a batch is processed at a time. This means that either the jammed batch had been counted at least 8 times or the counting machine was defective.

I was so disturbed at this problem I brought it to the attention of my Dominion manager, Nick--

Whatever his last name is, however you say that.

Nick stated we were there to assist with IT, but not to run their election.

Besides extreme counting irregularities, the adjudication process volunteers watching the counting is supposed to be witnessed by one Republican and one Democrat. The conversations I overheard between those watching were usually derogatory comments about Republicans, thus I concluded that often there were two Democrat election volunteer poll watchers at many of the machines and no Republican poll watcher at all.

I want to describe what occurred during shift change, which commenced about 7 p.m. It was chaotic and stunningly disorganized. It took about 2 hours for people to be assigned an area. At one point perhaps 30 people came downstairs to tabulation machines to be counters. At least four of them, one of whom I have known for over 20 years, told me they received absolutely no training for the counting area whatsoever. Upon information and belief, none of these workers transferred to the mail-in ballot counting section knew how to fix a tabulation problem. I showed many of these new counters how to cancel a partially scanned batch of ballots before resubmitting that jammed batch of ballots to be rescanned. Many of these new counters whom I helped with jams admitted they had received no training.

Prior to my first shift, I received an email from Dominion that I would be issued a badge when I arrived at the TCF Center. When I appeared for my first shift, it was difficult to enter the TCF Center because I did not receive a badge and could not prove my Dominion credentials. A Dominion employee nicknamed Danielle came over and explained who I was. Only then was I permitted to enter the building.

When I asked my manager, Nick, for a badge, he replied that I didn't need a badge. He stated we did not want our names to be showing because the challengers would attempt to question us while working. As a related aside, I recall a co-worker taking off her Dominion badge when a challenger asked whether or not the adjudication hardware was connected to the internet. Finally, Samuel Challendes removed his Dominion badge after a challenger took my picture and was escorted from the TCF Center.

Samuel Challendes, a top Dominion employee from Denver, left the TCF Center midafternoon on November 3, 2020, to assist at the warehouse.

When Samuel returned about 3 hours later, I asked him where the warehouse was and who owned it. I asked: Is it like an Amazon warehouse?

He said, no, then explained that we call it the Chicago warehouse. It is where I had my pre-election training, the city of Detroit elections building.

During the nightshift everyone was free to come and go as they pleased in and out of the counting room. Some people left reportedly to smoke and returned later to the counting room. I believe it is illegal to do this because boxes and stacks of ballots were left unattended. Nobody was present to verify that no ballots were removed or brought in, no one was paying attention, no one logged people as they came and went. When I returned to the TCF Center at 10 a.m. November 4, I walked right into the building, nobody stopped me, security was absent and nonexistent.

Sometimes city workers asked me for the location of the blank ballots. There was a white table of blank ballots left unattended. When a worker had a ballot or ballots that they deemed defective in some way, they would go to the white table of blank ballots and complete one or some. I believe they were supposed to complete the ballot to match exactly what the voter intended. I saw city workers actually sign names as this if they were the person who completed the original ballot reportedly being replicated. Nobody was present to verify if these newly completed replacement ballots were identical.

Dominion employee Samuel Challendes and a city worker who looked to be in his mid-twenties were responsible for submitting the final ballot numbers into the main computer. They had absolutely no supervision or accuracy verification. Dominion manager, Nick, was on the main floor assisting with IT jams most of the time. There was no city of Detroit staff present to witness the process.

During the evening, I overheard Samuel talking to Nick about losing tons of data. Then Samuel, Nick, and the city worker all moved to the side of the stage and made calls on their cellphones. I asked Nick what was going on. He replied it was all taken care of and not to worry. I did not see anyone approach the computer Samuel and the city worker utilized. Nick went back to helping un-jam the tabulator machines. It is my understanding this critical error remains undocumented and unaddressed.

Two vans pulled up to the garage of the counting room, one on day shift and one on night shift. I do not know what these vans contained, but I doubt it was food, because there was a shockingly short supply of food for the workers and I never saw food leave either of the vans. Coincidentally, the news announced Michigan discovered 100,000 additional ballots less than 2 hours after the last van left the building.

She goes on to talk about she was the only Republican working for Dominion Voting Systems that she was aware of.

There are more allegations and more statements, under oath.

On November 5 I called the FBI to report the activity I witnessed which I believed to be criminal activity. After my initial report I was disconnected. When I called back and explained the nature of my call, I was placed on hold for a long time. Eventually I was able to explain my concerns, provide my contact information. As of today, I have not been contacted by the FBI over my concerns of massive voter fraud.

But anyway, that is an affidavit, and affidavits are indeed evidence.

Here is an affidavit from another witness. It is sworn to. He personally observed the absent voter counting boards in Detroit at the TCF Center. He has attended the Wayne County campus on an almost daily basis.

On November 17, there was a meeting of the board of canvassers to determine whether to certify the results of Wayne County. The meeting did not start until 5, supposed to start at 3. We were told it was delayed so that representatives of the Democrat board members could obtain additional affidavits.

At 5 p.m., an open meeting and discussion began to discuss the issue of whether to certify the vote. In my review of the results, I determined that approximately 71 percent of Detroit's 134 absent voter counting boards were left unbalanced and many unexplained. I informed the board members of the discrepancies, but soon thereafter, a motion to certify was made by Vice Chairman Jonathan Kinloch. After further discussion, I renewed my concerns that the reason that the numbers did not balance for the majority of the AVCBs in Detroit and, importantly, could not be explained. If the vote totals did not match, there should have been a documented reason explaining why.

The board considered the ultimate question of whether to certify the vote, and the motion to certify failed 2-2.

This vote was followed by public derision from our two Democrat colleagues. I, and Monica Palmer, who also voted against certification, were berated and ridiculed by members of the public and other board members. This conduct included specious claims that I was racially motivated in my decision. This public ostracism continued for hours, during which time, we were not provided an opportunity to break for dinner and were not advised that we could depart and resume the hearing on another date.

I discussed a potential resolution with Vice Chair Kinloch in confidence. Ms. Anderson-Davis told us that we must vote to certify on that night. We were told that we could not consider matters such as the unexplained reasons that most of Detroit's AVCBs did not balance, and no one knew why.

They were told they couldn't consider that.

During the evening, Wayne County counsel, Ms. Janet Anderson-Davis, and my colleagues on the board continued to discuss irregularities. Ms. Anderson-Davis advised the board that the discrepancies were not a reason to reject the certification, and based on her explicit legal guidance, I was under the belief that I could not exercise my independent judgment in opposition to the certification. Therefore, I voted to certify the results.

Late in the evening, I was enticed to agree to certify based on the promise that a full and independent audit would take place. I would not have agreed to the certification but for the promise of an audit.

Then he goes on to explain the different promises he was made. But as pointed out:

There are questions that need to be answered and can only be answered if Wayne County's canvass is transparent and provides information within its control. That information includes:

The logs indicating when drop box ballots were collected and delivered, the log of persons who made these deliveries and who had access to drop-box keys and when that access was obtained.

Similar concerns exist regarding the delivery of ballots to the TCF Center during the night of November 3 and the morning hours of November 4.

I am also concerned about the use of private moneys directing local officials regarding the management of the elections, how these funds were used.

He goes on:

Why do the poll books, qualified voter files, and final tallies not match or balance?

Seventy-one percent of Detroit's did not balance. Why not?

Anyway, great questions that need to be answered if we are going to ever get to a proper finding regarding the results in Wayne County.

I have an affidavit from Monica Palmer that was just mentioned. So like I said, there are hundreds of affidavits and sworn testimony as to improprieties.

It should be noted, a lot of people have heard about, this is the title, ``Dominion Part of Council That Disputed Election Integrity Concerns in DHS Statement.'' This is by Jeff Carlson with Epoch Times.

But we now know--it has been blasted all over the news--that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency headed by Christopher Krebs--he was fired. But before he was fired, his Agency issued a statement on November 12 disputing the allegation, saying: ``The November 3 election was the most secure in American history.''

What that Agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems is a member of the cybersecurity agency CISA. They are a member of CISA's Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council, one of the two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA saying there is no fraud.

The Agency didn't respond to requests for comment immediately, but this article goes on to point out both Dominion and Smartmatic are listed as members of CISA's Sector Coordinating Council and appear to be actively involved, as they are named as organizing members. Among the key objectives is to ``serve as primary liaison between the election subsector and Federal, State, and local agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.''

Let's face it, Mr. Krebs worked for Microsoft at one time. They are not big fans of President Trump, nor is Bill Gates. But this article says: ``As CISA notes, they do not have direct oversight or responsibility for the administration of our Nation's elections as that responsibility lies with State and local governments.''

Yet, they had no problem issuing a statement promising everybody that these elections were totally free of fraud. Dominion used CISA to deny the allegations against Dominion.

There is more in that article, but time is short.

It is amazing. There was a judge, though. The judge didn't issue any order that cleaned up the problem. The judge noted that the case presented ``serious system security vulnerability and operational issues that may place plaintiffs and other voters at risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote that is accurately counted.''

That is kind of like John Roberts: Yep, the case is presented. Could be a lot of fraud here, but I am going to let the fraud go forward. I am not going to deal with it.

This could be the last election where there is any hope of having a true two-party system for President. We saw what happened with the abuse by the FBI, Department of Justice, State Department, a certain individual or possibly individuals. Even the Department of Defense got involved, trying to frame President Trump's campaign, justified, according to some, originally, spying on the campaign. But we know a lot more now.

But let me make clear to people that are a bit slow-witted, like somebody at the Dallas Morning News: I have never advocated for revolution. I have mentioned the American Revolution, but I have quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., including in the speech where I was said to have advocated for revolution. I said: We must follow his example, and that is a peaceful demonstration, that we can rise up, but it must be peaceful.

How much clearer does it need to be?