Click here to read the full article

GA State Sen­ate com­mit­tee rec­om­mends decer­ti­fy­ing GA elec­tors in U.S. pres­i­den­tial election.

The GOP-con­trolled GA State Sen­ate released a report this morn­ing on the mas­sive elec­tion fraud that occurred in the state before, dur­ing, and after the poll on Nov 3rd in the U.S. gen­er­al election.

The con­clu­sions are damning.

Below is the exec­u­tive sum­ma­ry of the report:

The Novem­ber 3, 2020 Gen­er­al Elec­tion (the “Elec­tion”) was chaot­ic and any report­ed results must be viewed as untrust­wor­thy. The Sub­com­mit­tee took evi­dence from wit­ness­es and received affi­davits sworn under oath. The Sub­com­mit­tee heard evi­dence that prop­er pro­to­cols were not used to ensure chain of cus­tody of the bal­lots through­out the Elec­tion, after the open­ing of bal­lots pri­or to the Elec­tion, and dur­ing the recounts. The Sub­com­mit­tee heard tes­ti­mo­ny that it was pos­si­ble or even like­ly that large num­bers of fraud­u­lent bal­lots were intro­duced into the pool of bal­lots that were count­ed as vot­ed; there is no way of trac­ing the bal­lots after they have been sep­a­rat­ed from the point of ori­gin. The Sub­com­mit­tee heard tes­ti­mo­ny of pris­tine bal­lots whose ori­gin looked sus­pi­cious or which could not be ver­i­fied and the inabil­i­ty of poll work­ers to dis­tin­guish between test bal­lots and absen­tee bal­lots. Sig­na­tures were not con­sis­tent­ly ver­i­fied accord­ing to law in the absen­tee bal­lot­ing process.

Poll watch­ers on Elec­tion Night tes­ti­fied that they had not­ed that bal­lots were not secured, that seals and secu­ri­ty tags were not used, and the chain of cus­tody was often lax or non-exis­tent. Dur­ing the recount process, the mon­i­tors observed sim­i­lar pat­terns of unse­cured bal­lots that had bro­ken seals and open cas­es of bal­lots lay­ing around for hours or overnight in unse­cured loca­tions. There was a lack of enforce­ment of the law, slop­py han­dling of the bal­lots by those count­ing, delib­er­ate cov­er­ing-up of vot­ing num­bers by work­ers, lack of fol­low­ing the process dur­ing the recount, unsafe han­dling of mil­i­tary bal­lots, and inse­cure data such as on lap­tops and flash dri­ves. Accord­ing to sub­mit­ted tes­ti­mo­ny, there were also many equip­ment fail­ures when bal­lots would not go through the machines and oth­er times when bal­lots were count­ed more than once.

A great deal of tes­ti­mo­ny sup­port­ed evi­dence of a coor­di­nat­ed effort to pre­vent a trans­par­ent process of observ­ing the count­ing of bal­lots dur­ing the absen­tee bal­lot open­ing peri­od and on Elec­tion Night. Wit­ness­es tes­ti­fied to hos­til­i­ty to Repub­li­can poll work­ers dur­ing the recount – direc­tion­al sig­nage was unavail­able, doors were locked, and Repub­li­can poll watch­ers were sent home ear­ly or giv­en menial assignments.

Mon­i­tors through­out the state were often kept at an unrea­son­ably long dis­tance – some social dis­tanc­ing was under­stand­able, but mon­i­tors were blocked from hav­ing the visu­al abil­i­ty to see what was writ­ten on the bal­lots or to have any mean­ing­ful way to check the count­ing or to dou­ble-check that what was count­ed was actu­al­ly assigned to the right can­di­date. They also could not observe what was entered into the ARLO sys­tem, nor could they be told the count that was being entered into ARLO. Instead, they were told that those num­bers would be totaled and come back from the Sec­re­tary of State’s Office. They were also told not to take pic­tures, film, or have oth­er means of acquir­ing proof of the process that they were expe­ri­enc­ing based on a rule from the State Elec­tions Board. That rule con­tra­venes the spir­it and pur­pose of the elec­tion law.