READ: Affidavit from Democrat observer questioning Georgia ballots

A Democrat observer to the Georgia ballot counting has filed a sworn affidavit in a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the process.

Read partial excerpts from the affidavit below:

Read the document here:

Read another affidavit here:

From Wood v. Raffensperger

Read another affidavit here:

Reach Epoch Times story about the case here:

Read more below:

Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

31 thoughts on “READ: Affidavit from Democrat observer questioning Georgia ballots”

  1. Yet the WSJ lead editorial said today there’s no proof of malfeasance. Ugh. When conservatives go soft in the head, we’re screwed.

    1. So the WSJ doesn’t consider a sworn affidavit evidence of malfeasance? Do they think it bears investigation? This is pretty ugly.

  2. Computer vote machine fraud through access to real-time tabulation has been reported since 2011. In fact, there was expert testimony before congress. (The video is on YouTube.)
    Add late voting and mass mail ballots, and you have the perfect combination for fraud. Computer program ‘patches’ to alter the vote and flip ballots (to avoid surpassing registered vote rolls) and mail ballot ‘harvesting’ (and assembly line filling out of blank ballots).
    The attached Facebook image link is of a spreadsheet evidence of this technique for fraud. Note that Biden won by an average of 1.1X, barely winning, while Trump averaged 1.7X Biden’s votes.

  3. Not at all surprised by the report. It reflects a statement I made earlier, regarding the tally of votes, before the verification process. If it isn’t cleared up before Christmas, I certainly hope the Senate will make the sensible decision.

  4. I am a Georgia native and live in Georgia, this is complete BS. I know for a fact that there is NO WAY Georgia went for biden, period! I hope those behind the cheating like hiding…

  5. There will be hearings and an announcement will be made next week. No arrest, no indictments, no charges and no convictions, but on line humorous comments will save the republic! No need to get involved, trust the plan and sit on your arse and do nothing.

    1. You are spot on. We have had enough “bright shiny objects” waved in from of us in the past few years to light up the sky, but Hillary is still out running around, Barr is still laying low or playing coy; Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. are still running free. Obama is making veiled references to liberal censorship of the rest of us while Facebook, Twitter, and Google are doing it. And now, the astoundingly corrupt Biden operation is being sheltered by the Democrat machine which has shown its left wing noisemakers how it is really done. Meanwhile this same operation has “elected” a placeholder president to keep the seat warm for the leftmost senator now about to become heir to the throne. This is not going to end well.

    2. MSM continue to say claims of fraud are false so why don’t we challenge them to make the arrests for those signing the affidavits??? Make them explain why this isn’t being done

  6. EVERY leftist has a criminal mind (immoral, self-entitled, disrespectful). They commit nearly all crime (as confirmed by stats and studies), they vote for criminals to steal for them, they turn government into organized crime, they encourage foreign criminals to invade, they attack police and victims who try to stop their crimes, they demand their victims be disarmed of all rights, from speech to self defense., they attack people for engaging in civil rights like free speech and free exercise of religion, . . . There is no place in any free country for people with criminal minds (e.g., leftists and their islamist allies).

    Covid (emanating from leftwing China) has been far more effective at destroying capitalism (freedom) and fair elections than “man made global warming,” so expect endless “pandemics” to attack individual rights, from free speech to one legal citizen one legal vote.

  7. Sadly, it seems like the sheer volume of evidence–and incontrovertible proof–makes no difference at all. The Democrats have decided they’ve won and the MSM supports their theft of the election. Is there any doubt who will “win” the GA runoff for control of the Senate in January? LOL! Come on…what a scam. The fix is SO in that there seems to be no recourse but to bend over and grab our ankles. We can see the election(s) being stolen before our eyes but are forced to grit our teeth and accept it.

    1. Are you kidding? This has to stop and now. We just don’t take it. This is the USA for God’ sake. I hope the President’s team is able to overturn this election. and stop any fraud from this time on. This is not something we should take lying down.

    1. Uh, because he’s a Democrat. I know people are fond of redefining reality but facts are facts. You trying to say that all his behaviors invalidate how he identifies and is registered– doesn’t erase the reality.

      1. What I assume that BelaLugosi is trying to point out is that using the identifier of “Democrat” was likely an attempt to add a veneer of legitimacy to the allegation by noting that the charge is coming from “the other side”. Otherwise why mention it at all? I think that BelaLugosi has a valid point. Any Democrat that would contribute to Jim Jordan’s reelection could hardly be considered a mainstream Democrat. So that veneer loses some of its luster. I think that it’s a lot more relevant to point to statements by Mr. Raffensberger who has said that he wanted Trump to win and yet still agreed to certify the Georgia results.
        While SA is certainly correct that “facts are facts” it matters a great deal whether the facts presented give a complete picture. If it is seen as relevant to identify the declarant as a Democrat, isn’t it also relevant to know what sort of Democrat he/she is? What if it turned out that this person was a “pro-Trump Democrat”? Wouldn’t that change everyone’s perspective? If Justin Amash said something negative about Trump, should he be identified as an “anti-Trump Republican” or simply as a “Republican”?
        Of course the overarching question is whether any of the “facts” alleged in these reports turn out to really be “facts” or not. And if they do not, will we see a retraction? Or at least a clarification?
        Agree or not, I think that the point being made by BelaLugosi is worth more than the snarky response provided especially when there are any number of other comments that are more than snark-worthy.

  8. Re: Lanier
    I don’t have the time, but would someone count the errors in this? For one thing it should not be “Democratic”, it should be “Communist-Antifa-RaceBaiter-BLM-Intersectionalist-Prevaricateur-Totalitarian-ChineseOwnedandOperated Party”.

    But there are more errors as well.

  9. Dick Lanier:
    So do you call a member of the Democratic Party a Democratic or a Democrat? I want to be correct but I’m confused. Also could you kindly provide the case numbers and names of the 30-some lawsuits Trump filed that “were heard” and “summarily dismissed.”

    I’ll have to say that I definitely have to put more stock in a sworn affidavit by an eye witness who risks perjury charges than an online attack by an unsworn person who has not established any credibility whatsoever.

  10. I see that my first post has disappeared for some reason. Perhaps it was too long. Because I can’t imagine it was because I challenged the assertions in this article. So let me provide a more concise summary.
    1) It’s easy to make allegations, even in sworn affidavits. But you need evidence in court. If there is, in fact, “overwhelming evidence” and “incontrovertible proof” that election fraud has occurred, why is Trump 0-for-November in court? . Just yesterday the last lawsuit in Arizona was dropped as was the final lawsuit in Michigan. Pennsylvania is still on the table, but the lawsuit filing did not provide any evidence. Does it make any sense that all of the judges involved would be that biased to ignore such ironclad proof? Or is the Trump legal team that incompetent? I just read an article from National Review in which someone in the Michigan lawsuit claimed that there were “multiple Michigan precincts with suspiciously high numbers of votes compared to ‘Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics’”. The problem according to the National Review is that most of the precincts listed in the filing are in Minnesota, not in Michigan. Oops!
    2) The latest conspiracy theory about the Dominion voting system strains credulity. It’s not just that those systems have been tested. It’s the story that the company has ties to Hugo Chavez and George Soros and the votes have been sent overseas and modified and then returned. I’m not aware of any evidence that has been made public to back up that story. Even Tucker Carlson is crying foul on this story (or at least he’s crying foul on Sidney Powell’s failure to provide any evidence when she was asked
    3) There is no way to “prove” that no election fraud occurred because it is practically impossible to prove a negative. But think of the damage being done to this country by these (so far at least) unproven charges. There seems to be no requirement thus far to provide any evidence for many to believe the charges. Democrats are guilty because they are Democrats. That kind of mindset is not healthy. No one should pay too much attention to charges until they are backed up in court.
    4) Most of the lawsuits follow the same pattern. Some people make some accusations and sometimes provide sworn affidavits, Giuliani goes on TV and claims that this “proves” that the election was stolen, Trump tweets about it, the Trump media swoon over the charges, those affidavits are incorporated into a lawsuit, the lawsuit is heard, and the lawsuit is summarily dismissed. Then a new set of accusations are made, and the cycle starts anew. Lather – rinse- repeat.
    5) Slightly off topic, but given that there is every indication that Biden is the President-elect, it’s far past time for Trump to authorize the transition funding and information flow to begin. There is no reason not to. It only hurts the country to do otherwise.
    So tell me where I’m wrong.

    1. You’re wrong. Conceding to treachery is what you’re demanding. If there is no proof, so be it. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. So all your long explanations of what you think happened are a waste of time as well. Just cool your jets and let it play out. And BTW professing to know what’s going on in the courts is real impressive, but how can you possibly have all that information? How about some names, dates and, you know, details?

      1. I freely admitted that I can’t prove that fraud did not occur because you simply can’t prove a negative. So if you want to continue to believe that fraud occurred, as you appear to do, without any evidence to support that belief, that’s your prerogative (although that seems like a dangerous way to live). I don’t know how to debate your feelings. All I can do is provide an argument that I believe shows that the preponderance of evidence (and, really, thus far all of the evidence) lies on the “no fraud” side and challenge others to provide contradicting evidence if they wish. So far, there hasn’t been anything other than what can only be described as anecdotal evidence from the “fraud” side. I am not a lawyer so my legal opinion means nothing. All I am doing is citing what has happened in actual court cases that do involve people with legal training. I think that I’m qualified to do that as only being conversant in English is required. I don’t know the exact number of lawsuits Trump has filed, but it is somewhere in the mid-30’s. Of those I believe that he has won two: (1) allowing observers in Pennsylvania to stand 6 feet away instead of 10 feet away, and (2) not counting votes in Pennsylvania that were received after election day (which I think was about 10000). Neither of these has anything to do with fraud. And the cases in Arizona and Michigan were dismissed with some pretty caustic comments from the presiding judges about the lack of evidence claiming to back up the claims in the lawsuit.
        Here is a link to an article summarizing the lawsuits. Read it for yourself:
        And I’m not “conceding to treachery”. I view it as “conceding to logic”.
        You say that I’m wrong. Perhaps I am. But just saying it doesn’t make it true. I have laid out my arguments as plainly as I could while trying to limit my comments. If there is something incorrect or misleading or some relevant missing information, please point it out.

        1. By all means, let us keep looking for valid proof of malfeasance. We already know that Biden is a lifetime career crook and not functioning on all burners, which does not bode well for the future.

  11. I find it fascinating that I only stumbled on this post because I searched using Duck Duck Go and it was the first hit. Using either Google or Bing it was not in the first five pages,

Scroll to Top