Judge Considers Unsealing Absentee Ballots In Fulton County, GA Following Credible Allegations of Fraud

Advertisements

In the age of technology, it’s almost impossible to get away with a crime. There are 100 ways to get caught and a criminal may think of 99 of them. But somewhere in the paper or the digital trail, resides the one item that was overlooked. And a diligent, persistent investigator will find it.

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, over 1,000 poll watchers in swing states signed sworn affidavits stating they had witnessed irregularities on and in the days immediately following Nov. 3.

One of the complainants, Garland Favorito, is the co-founder of the Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia, a conservative government watchdog group.

RealClearInvestigations‘ Paul Sperry recounted Favorito’s story. “A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. In the early hours of Nov. 5, a surge of some 20,000 mail-in votes suddenly appeared for Joe Biden, while approximately 1,000 votes for President Trump mysteriously disappeared from his own totals in the critical swing state.”

Favorito observed this “suspicious shift in votes while monitoring the interim election results on the Georgia secretary of state website.”

In the affidavit Favorito had filed with the secretary of state’s office, he wrote, “I concluded from looking at these results that this was an irregularity, since there was no obvious reason for President Trump’s totals to have decreased while former Vice President Biden’s totals increased dramatically.”

Favorito’s claims, along with virtually all of the other allegations were quickly dismissed by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

Refusing to be rejected so easily, he filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court. At a court hearing held on Monday, Henry County Judge Brian Amero appeared to take his case seriously.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Amero may unseal absentee ballots in Fulton County so a government watchdog [Favorito’s group] can investigate allegations of voting fraud in the November election.”

Amero said he’s “inclined to order the ballots to be unsealed and reviewed by experts hired by Favorito.” The ballots are currently under seal in the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk’s Office.

AJC reported:

At Monday’s hearing, Amero said he’s willing to order the absentee ballots to be unsealed if he’s assured their security will not be compromised. He requested a detailed plan, including who would review the ballots, how they would analyze them and how they would secure them.

The judge also discussed a protective order that would prohibit Favorito’s experts from disclosing their work without permission from the court. And he plans to appoint a special master — perhaps a retired superior court judge — to oversee the analysis. If Amero allows it, the review of ballots could begin in late April.

“I can’t sign an order until such time as I’m satisfied that the manner and method (of review) proposed by the petitioners is reasonable,” the judge said.

“We want to do this in such a way that dispels rumors and disinformation and sheds light,” Amero said at the hearing. “The devil’s in the details.”

Favorito is seeking to review absentee ballots in Fulton County. He says county workers fabricated ballots and counted some ballots multiple times on election night. As evidence, his lawsuit cites video of the counting, as well as sworn statements from people who were present.

The observers were suspicious of ballots that were printed on a different stock of paper than regular ballots, appeared to have been printed instead of marked by ink in a voter’s hand or were not creased, indicating they had not been placed in an absentee ballot envelope and mailed.

Naturally, state and county election officials dispute Favorito’s allegations. According to the AJC, these officials have explained that many ballots had been damaged and had to be duplicated before their scanners would process them. The scanners sometimes jam and when that happens, officials said, all of the ballots from a particular batch must be rescanned.

AJC quotes Gabriel Sterling, chief operating officer for the secretary of state’s office, who declared that “the witness statements in the lawsuits are wrong.”

Sterling told a reporter last week that, “It’s not people who are lying, they don’t understand what they’re saying.”

Of course.

Obviously, none of us know what happened with the ballots. But there seems to be too much smoke here for there to be no fire. And taking the Georgia election officials at their word is akin to taking the word of your teenager who swears he didn’t have a party when you were away, even though several bags of beer bottles were found and there’s a huge cigarette burn in the carpet.

Except that the stakes are exponentially greater. In fact, they have already changed the course of America’s future.

The majority of Trump voters, including myself, believe that fraud occurred in the election. We need to pursue each and every one of the allegations made in the sworn affidavits.

I am convinced that somewhere there exists that one detail that was overlooked. We need to find it.

Prominent Conservative Notices How BADLY the Left Wants Him to Say the Election Was Fair

Advertisements

Former Trump Administration national security official and conservative scholar Michael Anton has a question for Biden supporters. Why do they require his agreement that the November presidential election was free and fair?

In a recent op-ed published on American Greatness, he wrote:

Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too.

Which I could not do.

Sullivan badgered me on this at length before finally accusing me of being fixated on the topic, to which I responded, truthfully, that I was only talking about it because he asked.

After Anton was pressed on this by two other pundits, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait and The National Review’s “conservative” (but not really) writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, he gave the issue some thought.

He wrote:

At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.

Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…

Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…

Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.

What I’ve noticed from liberals and anti-Trumpers is they frequently present the high number of state judges who declined to review Trump’s lawsuits as evidence that no fraud occurred.

For example, a headline in The Washington Post on this topic read: “From a presidential commission to Trump-nominated judges, here’s who has rebuked Trump’s voter fraud claims.”

Well, one can’t find something if they refuse to even look.

Rather than being proof that no improprieties occurred in the election, it could very well be they chose not to review the cases because what if, God forbid, they actually did find evidence of fraud?

If Sullivan, Chait and Ponnuru are so sure the vote was counted fairly, why are they so concerned that Anton doesn’t think so?

Anton’s position is that he really does not know if the election was stolen or not. None of us do. Below, he produces a list of “oddities” that make him skeptical.

The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

On Thursday, I posted the results of a survey of Democratic voters. They were asked to rank their greatest political concerns. The top spot went to “Donald Trump’s supporters.”

Why do Trump supporters pose a threat to Democrats? Why is it so important to them that we all move on?

Maybe they know something we don’t know – yet.