Dr. Peter Navarro’s The Art Of The Steal

Dr. Navarro released his analysis of the 2020 Presidential Election fraud titled “The Art of The Steal” in PDF form to the general public recently. I read it carefully and noticed that it referenced many articles listed in my ‘Political Article Reference List” which is updated daily. What he has done is organize extensive evidence of election fraud that has been ignored by the corrupt mainstream media in such a way that it is easily understood.

I reformatted it here to make it easier for people to read online. If you want to understand what actually happened in this election I urge you to read it.

Executive Summary – The Art of the Steal

The Democrat Party and its political operatives, with the unwitting aid of “useful idiots” from the Republican Party, stole the presidential election from Donald J. Trump.

The Democrat Party used a two-pronged Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy to flood six key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – with enough illegal absentee and mail-in ballots to turn a decisive Trump victory into a narrow and illegitimate Biden alleged, “win.”

Prong One dramatically INCREASED the amount of absentee and mail-in ballots in the battleground states. Prong Two dramatically DECREASED the level of scrutiny of such ballots – effectively taking the election “cops” off the beat. This pincer movement resulted in a FLOOD of illegal ballots into the battleground states more than sufficient to tip the scales from a decisive legal win by President Trump to a narrow and illegitimate alleged “victory” by Joe Biden.

The Democrat Party relied primarily on legal means such as legislative and rule changes at the state level to implement its Grand Strategy and thereby achieve its illegal outcome. However, at times, political operatives advancing the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy also bent and sometimes broke, the laws and rules of that which is most sacred to our American public – our election system.

Key methods used by the Democrat Party to strategically game America’s presidential election included changes in the law approved by State Legislatures; rule changes and new guidance initiated by Secretaries of State or other election officials; court rulings and interventions; and the aggressive use of so-called “public-private partnerships” to commandeer and manipulate the election process in key Democrat strongholds such as Wayne County, Michigan and Dane County, Wisconsin.

Prong One of the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy used seven basic gambits to dramatically INCREASE the flood of absentee and mail-in ballots: relaxing mail-in and absentee ballot rules; sending absentee or mail-in ballots or applications for such ballots to every voter (universal mailing); increasing both the legal and illegal use of drop boxes; ballot harvesting; and the use of corrupted voting machines.

Prong Two of the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy used five additional gambits to dramatically DECREASE the level of scrutiny of the new flood of absentee and mail-in ballots into the battleground states relaxation of ID verification; reduced signature matching requirements; illegally counting naked ballots to increase ballot curing – both legal and illegal, and reduced poll watching and observing.

Democrat Party operatives frequently hid behind the shield of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus and the resultant pandemic to further their goals of boosting the absentee and mail-in ballot counts in the key battleground states.

The practical result of the Democrat Party’s two-pronged Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy was to flood the six key battleground states with enough illegal absentee and mail-in ballots to turn a decisive Trump victory into a narrow alleged Biden “victory.” Key political operatives assisting the Democrat Party included Wall Street oligarch George Soros, Silicon Valley oligarch and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Marc Elias, former Hillary Clinton Campaign General Counsel and one of the alleged architects and financial conduits for Fusion GPS and the Russia Hoax designed to topple a duly-elected President.

Soros’s money helped fund efforts to change election laws and rules through instruments such as referenda. Soros and his network of organizations such as the political action committee “Secretary of State Project” also helped to elect puppet Secretaries of State in Michigan (Jocelyn Benson) and Pennsylvania (Kathy Boockvar) who would play instrumental roles in bending or breaking election rules and thereby advancing the Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy. Zuckerberg’s money – nearly half a billion dollars – helped engineer what was effectively a hostile Democrat Party “public-private partnership” takeover of what should otherwise be a nonpartisan election process in key Democrat strongholds such as Wayne County, Michigan, and Dane County, Wisconsin.

Useful idiots for the Democrat Party included Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp and Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who entered into a Consent Decree that dramatically INCREASED the number of absentee and mail-in ballots while dramatically DECREASING the rejection rate of such ballots. Republican state legislators who voted for the bills that would help the Democrats advance its Grand Strategy likewise were unwitting dupes.

By implementing its Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy, the Democrat Party and its political operatives have strategically gamed one of the most sacred elements of American democracy, our election system. This was brass-knuckle politics played at the highest level which has delivered a brutal punch to the nose of the American people and a vicious kick to the groin of American democracy.

That the Democrat Party and its operatives have, up to this point, gotten away with their Immaculate Deception and Art of the Steal, represents a signal failure of the media, Republican state legislators, other Republican government officials across the battleground states, the US Congress, and our judicial branch of government at both the state and federal levels.

Volumes 1 and 2 of the Navarro Report – The Immaculate Deception and The Art of the Steal – together make a strong case for a full investigation of the election irregularities and strategic gaming of our political process that in all likelihood have led to a stolen presidential election. Any such investigation must begin immediately as this nation simply cannot risk the inauguration of a president who will be perceived by a large segment of the American people as illegitimate.

Introduction

Volume 1 of The Navarro Report, The Immaculate Deception, revealed a coordinated Democrat Party strategy to steal the 2020 Presidential Election. That strategy was to stuff ballot boxes with illegal absentee and mail-in ballots across six battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

As illustrated in Figure One, this Democrat gaming of our political process was manifested by six types of election irregularities observed across the battleground states. These irregularities included outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, due process fouls, violations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, voting machine irregularities, and statistical anomalies.

By exploiting these election irregularities – by bending, and at times breaking the law or election rules – the Democrat Party thereby illicitly transformed substantial Trump leads into alleged narrow Biden leads across each of the battleground states. However, as The Immaculate Deception documented, these alleged Biden “victory margins” are dwarfed by the number of potentially illegal ballots in every single battleground state as illustrated in Columns 7 and 8 of Figure One above.

For example, the alleged Biden “victory margin” is less than 12,000 votes in Arizona, while the number of potentially illegal ballots is 10 times that. In Georgia, the alleged Biden “victory margin” is a mere 12,670 votes, yet the number of ballots in question is more than 400,000.

In the wake of the release of the Navarro Report on December 17, 2020, I received numerous requests to explain just exactly how the Democrat Party and its operatives managed to pull off its Immaculate Deception. That is the purpose of Volume 2 of the Navarro Report, The Art of the Steal.

The Art of the Steal takes a more granular look at the Democrats’ Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy. It seeks to answer some of the most basic questions now rising in the minds of the American public and an American political leadership increasingly skeptical about the fairness and legitimacy of the 2020 election. How did the Democrats pull off its Immaculate Deception without detection and appropriate countermeasures by the Republican Party? When did the Democrats’ effort to topple a sitting president start? How much of what the Democrats did was illegal? And how much of what the Democrat Party and its agents did was done within the bounds of the law and rules but nonetheless led to an illegal outcome?

The Democrat Party’s Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy

This section of the report provides a broad overview of all of the various moving pieces and parts of the Democrat Party’s Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy. In the sections of the report that follow, we will provide additional granularity to each of these moving pieces and parts.

As illustrated in Figure Two, the Democrat Party and its political operatives used a two-pronged Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy to FLOOD six key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – with enough illegal absentee and mail-in ballots to turn a decisive Trump victory into a narrow and illegitimate Biden alleged “win.”

The first and most obvious prong of the strategy was to dramatically INCREASE the number of registered Democrat absentee and mail-in ballots cast in six battleground states – Arizona, Georgia Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker warned in their landmark 2005 Carter-Baker Commission Report, the best way to stuff illegal ballots into our election system without detection is by increasing absentee and mail-in ballots.1

The second and more subtle prong of the strategy was to dramatically DECREASE the scrutiny and concomitant certification or verification of this new flood of absentee and mail-in ballots. By essentially taking the ballot verification cops off the beat, the practical result would be to dramatically INCREASE the number of illegal ballots that would be counted in the battleground states.

Figure Three illustrates the various (mostly) legal means and gambits the Democrat Party used to strategically game the presidential election system and thereby achieve what was, in effect, an illegal end – a FLOOD of illegal ballots sufficient to tip the election to Joe Biden.

These gambits included: law changes by state legislatures; rule changes by Secretaries of State (SOS) and other election officials; various court rulings, court interventions, and petitions; the aggressive use of so-called “Public-Private Partnerships” often funded by oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros; and the equally aggressive use of propaganda campaigns under the guise of “public awareness” messaging.

You can see from the checkmarks in Figure Three that each of these gambits is present to a significant degree in all six battleground states. Of the six states, Nevada, with its Democrat Governor and Democrat Legislature, is the worst offender followed by Michigan and Pennsylvania, each of which has a Democrat Governor.

Figure Four illustrates the variety of means and gambits the Democrat Party employed to dramatically INCREASE the flood of absentee and mail-in ballots. These gambits – many of them legal but some of them bending or breaking the law or rules – included: relaxing mail-in and absentee ballot rules; sending absentee or mail-in ballots or applications for such ballots to every voter (universal mailing); increasing both the legal and illegal use of drop boxes; ballot harvesting; and the use of corrupt voting machines.

Figure Five similarly illustrates the variety of gambits the Democrat Party employed to DECREASE scrutiny of absentee and mail-in ballots. These gambits included: relaxation of ID verification; reduced signature matching requirements; illegally counting naked ballots to increase ballot curing – both legal and illegal; and reduced poll watching and observing. Again, it is important to point out here that much of what the Democrats did was legal; but some of what they did at times also bent, and arguably sometimes broke, the rules or the law.

In the remainder of this report, we shall further deconstruct the Grand Strategy of the Democrat Party following the flow and logic of the figures above.

Strategically Gaming America’s Presidential Election

Let’s work our way now systematically through various means and gambits the Democrat Party used to strategically game America’s presidential election. Note that the examples that we will offer throughout the remainder of this report are designed to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

This previously introduced figure summarizes the eight major means and gambits the Democrat Party used in its gaming of our presidential election:

Law Changes by State Legislatures

Three battleground states – Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania – issued major changes to their individual State Election Laws in the year leading up to the 2020 General Election. These are illustrated in Table One.

For example, after the Nevada State Primary Election, a Special Session of the State Legislature was called by the Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak of Nevada to change the state’s voting procedures. Notably, the CCP virus pandemic was used as a justification for this action.
Consequently, AB-4 was an omnibus measure modifying election procedures during periods of declared emergency in Nevada as currently exists due to the CCP Virus.2

In Pennsylvania, on October 31, 2019, Democrat Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 77 after its passage in the Republican-controlled State Legislature. This is the most drastic election law change Pennsylvania has made in modern history.

Act 77 made numerous major changes to state election law. In particular, the bill enabled “no-excuse” absentee ballot voting so voters no longer have to provide a reason for requesting absentee ballots; and it created a “new option” to vote by mail up to 50 days before an election and enabled voters to be placed on a list to “permanently receive a ballot application by mail.”3

This was a clear case where an unwitting “useful idiot” Republican legislature played right into the hands of the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy. Note: the term “useful idiot” is attributed to Vladimir Lenin. It describes naïve people who can be manipulated to advance a political cause.

This sweeping bill also extended the amount of time voters could register to vote; extended mail-in and absentee submission deadlines; and authorized a $90 million bond to “reimburse counties for 60 percent of their actual cost to replace voting systems.”4

Rule Changes by the Secretaries of State

Secretaries of State in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania bypassed their State Legislatures to issue rule changes that effectively allowed the counting of illegal ballots. They did so under the theory that the executive agency makes the rules while power is derived by legislation passed.

For example, on May 19, 2020, Michigan Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, elected with the help of George Soros,5 announced that all registered voters in the August 4, 2020, primary and the November 3, 2020, General Election would receive mail-in ballot applications automatically.6 This was a sweeping change.

Regrettably, it wasn’t just Democrat officials who were involved in promulgating such rule changes. As another useful idiot for the Democrats’ Grand Strategy, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger played right into their hands. On March 24, he announced that election officials would mail absentee ballot request forms to all of Georgia’s 6.9 million active voters for the primary election. This universal ballot measure was taken not just for the Presidential Primary Election on May 19 but also for the General Election on November 3.7

Rule Changes by Election Officials Other than Secretaries of State

Rule changes were also enacted by other election officials, effectively bypassing any chain of command running through either the Secretary of State or the State Legislature. These changes likewise contributed to the expansion of absentee and mail-in ballot voting.

For example, in Georgia, the State Election Board approved a rule in April of 2020 to allow Georgia voters to cast ballots by drop boxes on a twenty-four hours a day basis,8 using the CCP Virus pandemic as justification.9 This was a clear case of bending or breaking the rules, as Georgia state law does not permit counties to collect ballots outside of the normal business hours of Election Offices. Moreover, as this expanded Dropbox capability was implemented, poll observers testified that they were obstructed from observing ballot counting and processing, meaning that fraudulent ballots could have been dumped into these 24/7 drop boxes before collection.10

Similarly, on October 18, 2016, the Wisconsin Election Commission unanimously voted on a rule change11 for so-called “ballot curing” contrary to state law (specifically Wisconsin Statutes 6.84 and 6.86).12 With this illegal rule change, the Wisconsin Election Commission instructed that mail-in ballots with missing addresses should be cured, that is, fixed.13 However, Wisconsin Election Law states: “If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.”14

This may well be a case where the Republican Party was sleeping on the job. This change went unchallenged for eleven statewide elections until the Trump campaign took action following the November 3 election where mail-in ballots played a crucial role.15 The lack of a more timely challenge notwithstanding, the action taken by the Wisconsin Election Commission was clearly illegal.

Guidance Issued by Secretaries of State

As an additional gambit, Secretaries of State and other government officials in four of the six battleground states – Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – have pushed the envelope of their authorities and beat the rules to unilaterally bypass state legislatures and other election officials to issue so-called “guidance.” Their goals are to effectively expand the universe of absentee and mail-in ballots while reducing scrutiny of such ballots. Moreover, they did so often in clear contradiction of State Election Codes.

The poster children for this problem – and two shining examples of the corrosive effects of the oligarch George Soros on the integrity of American elections – are Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Pennsylvania’s Democrat Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar. Both of these liberal extremist puppets were elected with the help of the so-called “Secretary of State Project,” a political action committee funded by George Soros and members of the Democracy Alliance.16

The goal of the Secretary of State project was to build a “Democrat Firewall” in key battleground states by placing progressive extremists in positions of authority where they would be willing to bend, and, at times, break the law.17 This is exactly what has happened in the 2020 Presidential Election.

Consider, for example, Boockvar’s arguably unlawful guidance on September 15, 2020.18 She directed local election officials not to perform on-the-spot signature analysis for absentee and mail-in ballots. In effect, mail-in ballots could not be rejected even if election officials deemed there was an improper signature match. When it comes to outrageousness, this is about as outrageous as it gets in terms of DECREASING the scrutiny of mail-in and absentee ballots.

More broadly, Boockvar appeared to exhibit a total disregard for the sanctity of our legal system when she submitted clearly unlawful guidance a few days before the November 3 election that allowed voters missing proof of identification to have their mail-in ballots cured until November 12 – nine days after the election. This did indeed break the law; and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, finding that Boockvar lacked the statutory authority to take that step.19 Yet it was a clear and blatant attempt by a Soros puppet to rig the election.

George Soros certainly got his money’s worth as Boockvar also sought to extend deadlines for mail-in ballots,20 citing concerns over delivery times involving the United States Postal Service.21 Republicans opposed the action.22 Said Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (Republican): “The issue is [that]…Secretary [Boockvar is] trying to influence this process by sending out guidance at the 11th hour.” He also expressed that the (Pennsylvania) State Department had been “weaponized” and influenced by partisan attempts to sway the vote.23

Not to be outdone, in September 2020, another Soros puppet –Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson–encouraged voters, along with Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to vote by absentee ballot and drop off ballots in drop boxes to “decrease the spread of COVID- 19.”24 She also urged voters “not to wait too long” to send in their ballots and to take the ballots directly to their clerks’ offices for submission.25

Court Rulings

The American nation has been witness to the spectacle of our judicial branch likewise being used as a useful idiot for the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy to steal the presidential election. The problem here is that of judicial activism: far too often activist judges have let partisanship and their own ideology get in the way of a sober and clinical interpretation of the law. In this vein, Table Two below provides an overview of several court rulings that effectively advance the Democrat Party’s Grand strategy.

Consider, for example, the ruling of September 10, 2020, by Obama-appointed Judge Douglas Reyes of the U.S. District Court of Arizona. He ordered an extension period for absentee ballots for the 2020 General Election and thereby allowed missing signatures to be added to vote-by-mail ballots. In this dramatic expansion of the rules for curing ballots, election officials were allowed to give voters until 5:00 PM on the fifth business day after the election to sign their vote-by-mail ballot envelopes if they failed to sign at the time they submitted the ballots.26

Similarly, on August 26, 2020, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stevens, appointed by then-Governor and Democrat Jennifer Granholm, ruled that Michigan Secretary of State and Soros puppet Jocelyn Benson had the authority to mail all Michigan registered voters (7.7 million total) absentee ballot applications for the November 3rd election.27 This, likewise, was a dramatic expansion of universal mailing.

Court Interventions

Democrat-backed and funded third-party groups during the 2020 Election would also intervene in court cases or submit petitions to coerce state government officials and judges into pushing Radical Left election law changes.

For example, the oligarch George Soros spent over $28 million on influence operations during the 2020 Election.28 He funded groups like the Brennan Center for Justice which intervened on behalf of powerful Democrats like his puppet, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

During the Davis v. Benson case, three plaintiffs sued Secretary Benson29 for her decision to mail absentee ballot applications to all Michigan voters ahead of the 2020 Presidential Election.30 On August 25, 2020, the Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of Benson, granting her the authority to send ballot applications to all Michigan voters. 31 Again, it is useful to note here that this was a dramatic expansion of universal voting through absentee and mail-in ballots, with such universal voting as one of the worst conduits for illegal votes.

Not to be outdone, the leftist organization Democracy Docket, founded by Marc Elias, former General Counsel to the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, intervened in court cases to push election law changes consistent with the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy across all six states.32 A case in point: Elias and Democracy Docket supplied lawyers as “Intervener Defendants” and filed a
motion to intervene in the Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada case.33

It is well worth noting here that Elias is also credited with hiring the dirty tricks group Fusion GPS to “compile the ‘Russia dossier’ to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in the 2016 race.”34

It is as remarkable as it is abhorrent that the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice did not conduct a full investigation and issue indictments in a Russia Hoax that ended in a complete exoneration of President Trump. Effectively, the Elias-led effort has institutionalized the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to run propaganda campaigns to topple duly elected government officials, including the President himself.

Petitions for Public Referenda

As Table Three illustrates, the Democrat Party also used public referenda to change election laws in both Michigan and Nevada. The purpose of these referenda was to dramatically expand absentee and mail-in voting – just as the Democrat Party Grant Strategy dictates. These referenda are financed in part by the Wall Street oligarch George Soros; and it is worth noting here that Soros, the consummate globalist, made billions by “breaking the Bank of England” while inflicting great harm on the British working class.35 It is equally worth noting that the Globalist Soros has a strong antipathy towards the Economic Nationalism of Donald J. Trump.

Proposal 3 in Michigan was one of the most radical and sweeping changes to election law ever witnessed in America. Changes consistent with the Democrat Party’s Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy included: straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting during the 40 days before an election, extended mail-in voter registration until fifteen days before an election, and the auditing of election results.36

Proposal 3 was backed by Soros-financed far-Left groups like Promote the Vote. Promote the Vote spent $2.5 million collecting signatures for the Proposal 3 petition and for consulting and marketing.37 The referendum wound up passing with sixty-six percent of the vote in the 2018 Midterm Election. Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Soros puppet Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson both heavily promoted this radical weakening of election laws in the mainstream media.38

In fact, Proposal 3 was an encore to a similarly successful Soros-backed public referendum in Nevada. Shortly after the 2016 election, leftist organizations such as iVote and the ACLU of Nevada, both with ties to Soros,39 spent tens of millions of dollars in Nevada collecting 55,000 signatures to submit a petition for “automatic voter registration” law changes in Nevada.40

The proposed legislation was eventually passed by a public referendum in 2018. It mandated that individuals would be automatically registered to vote when receiving select services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), such as obtaining a renewal or change of address for a license or identification card. To not be registered to vote, individuals would have to decline the registration by submitting a request in writing—an obviously strong incentive to be registered. 41

Public-Private Partnerships (Zuckerberg-Soros Effect)

Both the Wall Street oligarch George Soros and the Silicon Valley oligarch and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used their deep pockets to finance public-private partnerships that would help advance the Democrat Party’s grand strategy.

Zuckerberg’s money – nearly half a billion dollars – helped engineer what was effectively a hostile Democrat Party “public-private partnership” takeover of what should otherwise be a nonpartisan election process in key Democrat strongholds such as Wayne County, Michigan, and Dane County, Wisconsin, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

It is worth noting that there is only one degree of separation between Soros and Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) was founded in 2012 and is staffed by people who worked at the New Organizing Institute, a now-defunct organization that was funded in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.42 During the 2020 Election, it would be Zuckerberg’s CTCL that would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund cities, towns, and counties for “election administration.”43

For example, Wisconsin used a $6.3 million CTCL grant from Mark Zuckerberg to support the installation of drop-boxes and illegal ballot harvesting events like “Democracy in the Park.” These funds were also used to help with various other election administration activities in several Democrat strongholds including Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine, and Kenosha.44

Similarly, Pennsylvania received over $12 million from CTCL. Fully $10 million of those funds poured into the Democrat-dominated Philadelphia to help boost turnout and count ballots. The strings attached to these funds required the city to open no fewer than 800 new polling places, thereby dramatically changing how Philadelphia managed its General Election processes.45 In a clear violation of its tax-exempt status, CTCL has posted anti-Republican and anti-Trump statements on social media.”46

Despite its claims of non-partisanship, CTCL’s officials have a documented history of involvement in left-wing political movements. A complaint filed on August 28, 2020, with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) showed that the organization is comprised of Barack Obama’s allies who were highly skilled in recruiting Democrat voters to the polls.47

It is also worth noting here that while this report does not examine any possible interventions by the Chinese Communist Party into our election, Mark Zuckerberg has long sought to enter the Chinese market. He speaks fluent Chinese,48, and his company, Facebook, has – despicably – hired 17 Chinese Communist Party members49 to increase Facebook’s ability to censor Trump supporters and the conservative movement.

Zuckerberg also has expressed sympathies for the Chinese Communist Party ideology. In 2014, Zuckerberg met with Chinese Internet czar Lu Wei in Silicon Valley, and was caught on Chinese state-run media promoting Chairman Xi’s book entitled “The Governance of China.” 50 In fact, Zuckerberg also distributed this propaganda trash to his colleagues, because he wanted them to understand Communist Party ideology such as “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”51 In 2016, Zuckerberg also met with China’s propaganda chief, Liu Yunshan, and praised the Communist Party for its “development of the internet.”52

As for George Soros and his web of progressive organizations, Soros’s effort to influence the 2020 election ironically would be assisted by a key department in the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In November 2019, DHS announced it would partner with Soros-funded VotingWorks – a left-of-center non-profit provider of voting machines and open-source election verification software – to salt key battleground states with voting machines.

Alleged Russia Hoax participant Marc Elias used tactics similar to Soros and Zuckerberg that likewise helped advance the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy. For example, Elias assisted Stacey Abrams’ nonprofit, the New Georgia Project, in filing a complaint on May 8, 2020, which called for radical Election Law changes. These changes included absentee ballot receipt deadline extensions and increased ballot curing.53

Elias’ plan would reap major fruit in Gwinnett, Georgia, as Republicans lost major races for District Attorney, Sheriff, and County Commission Chair. The Democrat Party also flipped the 7th Congressional District seat to the blue side.54

Propaganda “Public Awareness” Campaign

Many of the gambits advanced by the Democrat Party, their operatives, and their useful idiots were done under cover of “public awareness” campaigns that often amounted to little more than propaganda. Such campaigns were designed to target voters through published statements, reports, and media stories. The goal was to influence – and soften – public attitudes toward the liberalization of absentee and mail-in voting.

For example, in leaked documents from Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Soros-funded Brennan Center was listed as the recipient of funds earmarked for the express purpose of “litigation to expand access to registration and improve ease of voting.”55 As was common practice with the Democrats, the Brennan Center would use the shield of the CCP virus pandemic to advance its goals.

For example, in March 2020, the Brennan Center issued a memo to influence mail-in ballot election law changes as a result of the CCP Virus pandemic. The memo stated: “All voters should be offered the option to cast their ballot by mail (with multiple submission options, as provided below), to enable voters to avoid lines at the polls and exposure to COVID-19.”56

Soros-funded Brennan Center memo also made five key recommendations aimed at expanding absentee and mail-in voting. These included: (1) polling place modification and preparation; (2) expanded early voting; (3) a universal vote-by-mail option; and (4) voter registration modification and preparation, including expanded online registration. 57

Democrat Methods to Dramatically INCREASE Absentee and Mail-In Ballot Voting

Let’s turn next to an examination of the various methods the Democrats used to dramatically INCREASE absentee and mail-in ballot voting in the battleground states. As previously introduced, Figure Six below illustrates the seven principal methods. These methods were identified from an analysis of the various modifications made to state election laws rules and procedures in advance of the 2020 presidential election.

Note that a checkmark in a given cell in the matrix indicates that a particular mechanism was present in a particular state. For example, universal mailing of absentee and/or mail-in ballots was observed in both Nevada and Wisconsin. Similarly, there is an increase in voting through the use of drop boxes in Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Of the six battleground states, Georgia and Wisconsin were subject to six of the seven methods of boosting absentee and mail-in ballot voting while at the other end of the scale, Arizona was subject to three.

Relaxed Mail-in/Absentee Ballot Requirements

The relaxation of absentee and mail-in ballot requirements was accomplished in a variety of ways.
For example, on March 27, the Dane and Milwaukee County Clerks in Wisconsin issued guidance to voters that the pandemic was grounds for anyone to be considered an “indefinitely confined” voter.58 In effect, this gutted the ID verification process for anyone who chose to identify as indefinitely confined because it allowed these voters to cast their ballots without presenting proper ID as a condition for an absentee ballot.59

As a result of this change, the number of indefinitely confined voters surged in Dane and Milwaukee counties – two Democrat strongholds – from 72,000 in 2019 to over 240,000 by November 3, 2020.60 Within the context of the Democrat Party’s Grand Strategy, this was a twofer. The guidance simultaneously expanded the universe of absentee and mail-in ballot voters while lowering the level of scrutiny of these ballots.

Similarly, in Pennsylvania, a lawsuit was filed by the Democrat Party on July 10, 2020, citing Act 77’s provisions to expand absentee voting for all Pennsylvania registered voters.61 On September 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrat Party, allowing a three-day receipt deadline for absentee ballots postmarked by 8 PM on Election Day (November 3). In other words, ballots with a “pre-election” postmark were counted as long as they were received by 5 PM on November 6th, three days after polls closed. 10,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania were received after 8:00 PM on November 3.62

Legalizing Universal Mailing of Mail-in/Absentee Ballots

Several states across the U.S. conduct all mail-in voting. These include Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. In other words, these states send mail-in ballots automatically without the voter’s consent. However, universal mail-in ballots are historically subjected to higher rates of fraud due to lack of I.D. verification, individuals submitting ballots multiple times without being detected, and voting under the identity of another individual, and each of these examples is apparent during the 2020 Presidential Election.

As part of its Grand Strategy, the Democrat Party and its operatives were successful in pushing for universal mail-in voting in Nevada and Wisconsin. In both of these states, election laws were altered so that mail-in ballots could be sent automatically to every individual on the voter rolls.

For example, on August 3, 2020, Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak (D) in Nevada signed AB-4 legislation into law. It directed election officials to distribute mail-in ballots automatically to all active registered voters for the November 3, 2020, General Election. This bill also gave Sisolak the authority to bypass Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and command her to adjust election procedures during a declared State of Emergency.

Note that the CCP virus pandemic again was used to justify this power grab. This alleged “reform” has led to substantial fraud; for example, roughly 15,000 mail-in or absentee ballots were counted in Nevada from voters who had voted in other states.63

Legalizing Universal Mailing of Applications for Mail-in/Absentee Ballots

Closely related to the method of sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters is the technique of sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. This was done in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

For example, as previously noted, on August 26, 2020, the Michigan Court of Claims ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson had the authority to mail all Michigan registered voters (7.7 million total) absentee ballot applications for the November 3rd election.64

Similarly, on June 17, 2020, the Wisconsin Election Commission voted unanimously to send absentee and mail-in ballot applications automatically to 2.7 million registered voters for the November 3, 2020, general election, who had not originally requested mail-in ballots.65

Increase Voting by DropBox

As discussed in Volume 1 of the Navarro Report, the use of ballot drop boxes raises huge chain of custody issues. As a further complicating issue, ballot harvesting, which is illegal in ten states, becomes much easier with the use of drop boxes.

Perhaps for this reason, before the 2020 election season, only thirteen states used ballot drop boxes. In this year’s November General Election, however, that number skyrocketed to thirty- eight states and Washington, D.C.66

Consider, for example, Georgia. Ahead of the 2020 Presidential Primary Election held on June 9, the State Election Board required that “County registrars are authorized to establish one or more dropbox locations as a means for absentee by mail electors to deliver their ballots to the county registrars.”67 Drop Boxes were then installed in nineteen of Georgia’s 159 counties.68

Similarly, in Michigan, there appears to have been a conscious effort to stuff the ballot box by stuffing Democrat strongholds with drop boxes. Thirteen new drop boxes were established in Lansing,69 five in Ann Arbor,70 and nearly forty in Detroit,,71 As of the November 3 Election, Michigan had a total of 700 drop boxes statewide.72

Both Governor Whitmer and Soros puppet Secretary of State Benson issued statements in September 2020 to encourage voters to vote by absentee ballot and submit ballots via Dropbox to “decrease the spread of COVID-19.”73 Here again, we see the Democrats hid behind the shield of the CCP virus to
advance their Grand Strategy.

Illegal Use of Drop Boxes

In at least some cases, the expanded use of drop boxes was a clear violation of state law.
Consider, for example, Wisconsin. Drop boxes are clearly illegal according to state election law.74 Yet, the Wisconsin Election Committee nonetheless illegally issued guidance on August 19, 2020, to election officials in all municipalities throughout the state. It designated “drop boxes or mail slots set up for taxes, mail, and public utilities as secure ballot drop locations” and suggested “partnering with businesses…such as grocery stores and banks” as places, where voters could cast their ballots.75

For example, in Pennsylvania, ahead of the 2020 Presidential Primary, ballot drop boxes were established in violation of state law under Secretary of State Boockvar’s knowledge and consent.

Similar problems arose in Pennsylvania. On June 29, 2020, the Trump Campaign filed a complaint to Secretary of State Boockvar and sixty-seven county officials in Pennsylvania, stating that the Secretary of State established drop boxes illegally by failing to provide adequate security, oversight, and supervision over the drop boxes. These conditions would thereby foster an environment that would encourage legal ballot harvesting and/or tampering.76

As indicated in Volume 1 of the Navarro Report, numerous abuses were indeed observed. For example, ballots were illegally dumped into drop boxes at the Nazareth, Pennsylvania, ballot drop box center, in violation of state law.77 Another witness in Pennsylvania with video and photo evidence caught a man coming out of an unmarked Jeep extracting ballots from an unsupervised ballot dropbox to be brought into a ballot counting center.78

It’s not just that these drop boxes were illegally deployed. They were disproportionately deployed in urban areas with higher Democrat registration, favoring Joe Biden. 79

Ballot Harvesting

“Ballot harvesting” is the practice of allowing individuals to collect ballots from voters and deliver these bundles of votes to polling stations or drop boxes. Given the obvious chain of custody issues associated with ballot harvesting – and the equally obvious opportunities to engage in fake ballot manufacturing – it is no surprise that many states forbid the practice.

These dangers to our democracy notwithstanding, the Democrat Party successfully pushed for the passage of legislation to legalize ballot harvesting in the battleground states of Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.80

On August 3, 2020, Nevada Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak called a special session with the State Legislature and signed Assembly Bill 4.81 It legalized the practice of ballot harvesting.

Bill 4 passed on a party-line vote through both the state Senate and Assembly, with Democrats in favor82 and all Republicans opposed. 83 Implementation of this bill took place over the strong objections of Nevada Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske who warned that expanded ballot harvesting could fraudulently tip the scales in elections.84

In both Georgia and Wisconsin, where ballot harvesting is illegal,85 Democrat operatives nonetheless pushed the envelope of the law to run ballot harvesting operations. For example, several Democrat non-profits took advantage of the Georgia ballot-curing extension deadline and conducted an absentee ballot-harvesting operation. This operation alone is suspected to have added enough Democrat votes to tip the scales in favor of Joe Biden.86

To engage in this end-run around the law, these organizations called themselves “Ballot Rescue Teams.” They deployed Democrat volunteer activist operatives to call voters and knock on voters’ doors as part of this operation.87

As for Wisconsin, city officials in the Democrat stronghold of Madison assisted in the creation of more than 200 “Democracy in the Park” illegal polling places. These faux polling places were promoted and supported by the Biden campaign. They provided witnesses for absentee ballots and acted in every way like legal polling places—but weren’t. Moreover, they received ballots outside of the limited fourteen-day period preceding an election that is authorized by statute for in-person or absentee balloting. These were all clear violations of state law that had the effect of propagating ballot harvesting.

Installation of Potentially Corrupt Voting Machines

Much has been written about how vulnerabilities in voting machine systems may be exploited by cyber hackers and other bad actors to alter the count of actual ballots. A poster child for this problem is the dramatic malfunction that was observed with Dominion Voting Systems in Antrim, Michigan to the detriment of the count for President Trump.88

In July 2019, the nonprofit group Fair Fight Action issued a report claiming that another system—Election Securities and Software (ES&S)—has demonstrated a “systematic disregard for basic security best practices and a complete lack of competence in the manufacturing of reliable voting machines.” The report also cited “large-scale negligence [that] exposed personal data of millions of voters, left tens of thousands of names off rolls, and led to massive delays in vote counts across the country.” Moreover numerous US Senators “have expressed national security concerns after ES&S lied to federal lawmakers, refused to reveal which states were sent critically flawed machines, and vigorously fought attempts to reveal reliability information.”89

Despite such concerns and warnings, Dominion and ES&S were implemented in all six battleground states between 2017 and 2020. For example, in March of 2020, Georgia rushed to install 30,000 new electronic voting machines from Dominion. State evaluators warned that these machines were subject to vulnerabilities.90 Nonetheless, they were installed in all of Georgia’s 159 counties.91

In 2019, Pennsylvania installed Dominion in fourteen of Pennsylvania’s sixty-seven counties, resulting from guidance issued by the Soros puppet Secretary of State Boockvar.92 In 2020, 33 counties in Pennsylvania also installed the ES&S system. These counties included the Democrat strongholds of Philadelphia and Montgomery.93 (Dane and Milwaukee in Wisconsin also use ES&S which were also found to be susceptible to vulnerabilities).94

In March of 2017, the Michigan state government and twenty-two localities likewise awarded Dominion a $31.5 million contract to provide voting machinery statewide. The top-spending local governments included the cities of Detroit ($457,880), Dearborn ($22,975), and Livonia ($65,310) in Democrat-dominated Wayne County.95

Dramatically DECREASE Democrat Ballots Rejected Across Six Battleground States

Even as the Democrat Party sought to dramatically INCREASE the amount of absentee and mail-in ballots, they also sought to dramatically DECREASE the level of scrutiny of such ballots. The practical effect of a reduced level of scrutiny – fewer “election cops” on the beat – was to significantly increase the level of illegal ballots able to FLOOD into the six battleground states.

Figure Seven illustrates how the five major gambits used to reduce scrutiny of absentee and mail-in ballots were distributed across the six battleground states. You can see from the figure that the State of Georgia effectively ran the table on behalf of the Democrats – no small irony given the fact that Georgia has both as useful idiots, both a Republican governor and a Republican Secretary of State.

In studying this figure, it is important to note that all methods of reducing ballot scrutiny are not created equal. One of the most critical elements of a free and fair election is the transparency one gains through comprehensive poll watching and observing. While both Pennsylvania and Michigan are characterized by only this method of reduced scrutiny, this method alone affected hundreds of thousands of potentially illegal votes in both states.

Relaxed ID Verification Requirements

The Democratic push for lower voter identification requirements most notably occurred in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

For example, behind the shield of the CCP virus, Democrat stronghold counties in Arizona like Maricopa and Pima allowed and encouraged residents of long-term care facilities to vote by video chat.96 There is no way to verify voter identification by video call, and there is no oversight over special election boards to know if ballots are being recorded accurately.97

Similarly, as noted earlier, Wisconsin’s Democrat-dominated Dane and Milwaukee counties allowed anyone to register as “indefinitely confined.98 These Wisconsin votes were thereby tabulated without verifying photo ID.99

Relaxed Signature-Match Requirements

A major way mail-in and absentee ballots can be verified is through a process called signature matching. All states require voters to provide signatures on their absentee and mail-in ballot return documents to verify identification.100

Note that thirty-two states in the U.S. require election workers to match a voter’s signature with a signature on record for the voter on their registration form.101 In this case, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada all relaxed signature match requirements, bringing into question hundreds of thousands of potentially illegal ballots.

Perhaps most egregiously, on March 6th of 2020, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, with the approval of Governor Brian Kemp, signed off on a secret legal agreement with the Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to significantly alter absentee ballot procedures in Georgia.102 The Democrats’ attorney for this secret deal was alleged Russia Hoax operative Marc Elias from Perkins Coie.103

Originally, the signature-matching requirement in Georgia was such that the signature on the mail-in envelope had to match both the voter’s signature stored in the State’s E-Net system, as well as the absentee ballot application. The new guidance loosened these requirements; it only required that the signature on the absentee (mail-in) ballot envelope either must match the eNet signature, or the absentee ballot application, rather than both. 104 Further, the State required that if the election worker found a signature to not match, it couldn’t be rejected unless a majority of the registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks reviewing the signature agreed.105

This wholesale gutting of the state’s signature-match requirement resulted in a drastic reduction in Georgia’s absentee ballot rejection rate from 6.8% in 2016 to 0.34% during the 2020 Presidential Election. Effectively, almost none of Georgia’s 1.3 million absentee ballots were rejected.106 On top of this, Georgians were allowed to “cure” or “fix” their ballot signatures on ballots incorrectly filled out for three days after November 3 (Election Day).107 If the flood of absentee ballots in the 2020 election had been rejected at the same rate as in the 2016 election, that would have been enough alone to flip the election to President Trump.

A similarly egregious problem reared its Grand Strategy head in Nevada. New legislation passed in August of 2020108 allowed voters over sixty-five who have a disability or are unable to read or write to have someone assist them in physically marking signatures on their ballots.109 These relaxed rules thereby have called into question at least some of the 400,000 ballots cast by Nevadans aged 65 and older. This “reform” also likely contributed to the statewide absentee ballot rejection rate dropping from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. 110

Illegal Counting of Naked Ballots

A quick review of Figure Seven above indicates that the State of Georgia effectively cornered the market on the illegal counting of naked ballots. This was part of the bitter fruit of the aforementioned Georgia Consent Decree.

Increased Opportunities for Ballot Curing

As a fourth method to DECREASE the scrutiny of absentee and mail-in ballots, Democrats pushed for ballot curing leniency, which increased the ability or timeframe for curing problematic ballots. Ultimately, this effort allowed for illegally submitted mail-in or absentee ballots to be counted.

For example, on September 10, 2020, Obama-appointed Judge Douglas Rayes of the U.S. District Court for Arizona ordered election officials to give voters five business days after Election Day to sign their vote-by-mail ballot envelopes. Voters had until 5 PM on November 10 to sign the envelopes even if they failed to sign at the time they submitted the ballots.111

In the wake of this order, Democrat volunteers raced around the state texting, calling, and knocking on people’s doors112 to make sure thousands of ballots would be cured.113 Without the ruling, such votes would otherwise have been deemed illegal.

Perhaps most egregiously, the Wisconsin Election Commission unanimously offered guidance114 for vote curing, notably in contradiction of Wisconsin Statutes 6.84 and 6.86. For example, the Wisconsin Election Commission instructed curing mail-in ballots with missing addresses.115 This was despite Wisconsin Election Law plainly stating: “If a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted.”116 (Nevadans were also given a ballot-curing extension for up to a week after Election Day.)117

Reduced Poll Watching/Observing

Democrat Party officials and operatives repeatedly sought to reduce the meaningful access of Republican poll watchers and observers during the ballot counting process in half of the battleground states. At the same time, these officials and operatives also sought to reduce the actual number of poll watchers and observers, often behind the shield of the CCP virus.

For example, Act 12 was passed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature on March 27, 2020. It mandated a reduction in the number of poll workers.118 Also in Pennsylvania, certified Republican poll watchers were not allowed within six feet of ballot counters, and even kept at distances between 50 and 100 feet.119 Despite the disenfranchisement of observers and legal voters, counties like Philadelphia asserted that these restrictions had to go into effect due to pandemic social-distancing guidelines.120 Such limitations would remain in place until a Pennsylvania Court Ruling went into effect on November 5, after hundreds of thousands of ballots had already been processed.121

Michigan, likewise, was a hotbed poll watcher and observer abuses designed to reduce the scrutiny of potentially illegal absentee and mail-in ballots. For example, Republican poll workers were kept more than six feet from ballot counters, sometimes, on entirely separate floors.122 Like in Pennsylvania, this flagrant denial of ballot observation was justified under CCP pandemic guidelines.

The practical effect of the Democrat Party’s Art of the Steal was to substantially increase the number of potentially illegal ballots across all six battleground states. The equally practical result of the Art of the Steal was to effectively tip the balance of the election through the strategic gaming of the electoral process. While much of what the Democrats did was not per se illegal, what they did enabled illegal activity, namely, stuffing the ballot box with illegal mail-in and absentee ballots.

Concluding Observations

By implementing its Grand “Stuff the Ballot Box” Strategy, the Democrat Party and its political operatives have strategically gamed one of the most sacred elements of American democracy, our election system. This was brass-knuckle politics at the highest level which has delivered a brutal punch to the nose of the American people and a vicious kick to the groin of American democracy.

That the Democrat Party and its operatives have, up to this point, gotten away with their Immaculate Deception and Art of the Steal represents a signal failure of the media, Republican state legislators, and other Republican government officials across the battleground states, the US Congress, and our judicial branch of government at both the state and federal levels.

Volumes 1 and 2 of the Navarro Report – The Immaculate Deception and The Art of the Steal – together make a strong case for a full investigation of the election irregularities and strategic gaming of our political process that in all likelihood have led to a stolen presidential election. Any such investigation must begin immediately as this nation simply cannot risk the inauguration of a president who will be perceived by a large segment of the American people as illegitimate.

ENDNOTES

• 1 Carter, Jimmy, et al, “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” Center for Democracy and Election Management, American University, September 2005. https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/1472/file/3b50795b2d0374cbef5c29766256.pdf
• 2 Dentzer, Bill, “Nevada Senate OKs mail-in election bill on a party-line vote,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 2,
  2020. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-senate-oks-mail-in-election- bill-on-party-line-vote-2086628/
• 3 Pennsylvania General Assembly, Act 77, October 31, 2019.
  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77
• 4 Pennsylvania General Assembly, Act 77, October 31, 2019.
  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77
• 5 Brayton, Ed, “Secretary of State Candidates Focus on Voter Fraud, Soros,” Clerk/Register of Deeds. https://clerk.macombgov.org/Clerk-Newspaper-VoterFraud
• 6 Michigan State Government, “Benson: All voters receiving applications to vote by mail,” May 19, 2020.
  https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-529536–,00.html
• 7 “Absentee voting program embraced by Georgia voters, then abandoned,” AJC, June 29, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/absentee-voting-program-embraced-georgia-voters-then- abandoned/hkNttNsgXlaYZXjUatnvjK/
• 8 “Ballot drop boxes approved for Georgia voters during coronavirus,” AJC, April 19, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/ballot-drop-boxes-approved-for-georgia-voters-during- coronavirus/4Bir3Ymx1zL0ZOGsXMazEO/
• 9 “Republican lawsuit would limit the use of ballot drop boxes in Georgia,” AJC, December 9, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/republican-lawsuit-would-limit-use-of-ballot-drop-boxes-in- Georgia/7GBT2RX7N5DGXDDV6IONWEE5B4/
• 10 “Ballot drop boxes approved for Georgia voters during coronavirus,” AJC, April 19, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/ballot-drop-boxes-approved-for-georgia-voters-during- coronavirus/4Bir3Ymx1zL0ZOGsXMazEO/
• 11 BeMiller, Haley, “Fact check: Wisconsin clerks followed the guidance in place since 2016 about witnesses and absentee ballots,” USA Today, November 12, 2020.
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/11/fact-check-wisc-clerks-followed-2016-guidance- absentee-ballots/6253055002/
• 12 Wisconsin Elections Commission, “2020 Election for the President of the United States, Verified Petition for
  Recount,” November 18, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Recount- Petition_President_2020.pdf
• 13 https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Recount-Petition_President_2020.pdf
• 14 BeMiller, Haley, “Fact check: Wisconsin clerks followed the guidance in place since 2016 about witnesses and absentee ballots,” USA Today, November 12, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/11/fact-check-wisc-clerks-followed-2016-guidance- absentee-ballots/6253055002/
• 15 BeMiller, Haley, “Fact check: Wisconsin clerks followed the guidance in place since 2016 about witnesses and absentee ballots,” USA Today, November 12, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/11/fact-check-wisc-clerks-followed-2016-guidance- absentee-ballots/6253055002/
• 16 Shipwrecked Crew, “In 2006 George Soros Funded a Project to Elect Progressive Liberals to Secretary of State Offices — Now You Know Why,” Red State, November 6, 2020. https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/06/in-2006-george-soros-funded-a-project-to-elect-progressive- liberals-to-secretary-of-state-offices-now-you-know-why-n276082
• 17 Zenilman, Avi, “Secretaries of State Give Dem Firewall,” November 2, 2008. Https://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/secretaries-of-state-give-dem-firewall-015105
• 18 Pennsylvania Department of State, “Guidance Concerning Examination Of Absentee And Mail-In Ballot Return Envelopes,” September 11, 2020.
  https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/Examination%20of%20Absentee%20and %20Mail-In%20Ballot%20Return%20Envelopes.pdf
• 19 In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al, November 12,
  2020. https://static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2020/11/602-MD-2020-Order-Nov.-12.pdf
  See Also Davidson, Jordan, “Pennsylvania Judge Sides With Trump Campaign, Throwing Out Ballots Missing ID Deadline,” The Federalist, November 12, 2020. https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/pennsylvania-judge-sides-with-trump- campaign-throwing-out-ballots-missing-id-deadline/
• 20 Levy, Marc, “Pennsylvania asks the court to extend mail-in voting deadlines,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 14,
  2020. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2020/08/14/Pennsylvania-asks-court-extend-mail-in-voting- deadlines-2020-election/stories/202008140079
• 21 Montellaro, Zach, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court extends state’s mail ballot deadline,” Politico, September 17,
  2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline-extended-417044
• 22 Montellaro, Zach, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court extends state’s mail ballot deadline,” Politico, September 17,
  2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline-extended-417044
• 23 Rosenblatt, Lauren, “Senate Republican Leaders Ask for PA Secretary of State Boockvar to Step Down,”
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 4, 2020. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2020/11/04/Senate- Republicans-jake-corman-joe-scarnati-Pa-Secretary-State-Kathy-Boockvar-pa-election/stories/202011040130
• 24 LeBlanc, Beth, “Whitmer, Benson urges Michigan residents to make a voting plan,” The Detroit News, September
  16, 2020. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/09/16/whitmer-benson-urge-michigan- residents-make-voting-plan/5821769002/
• 25 LeBlanc, Beth, “Whitmer, Benson urges Michigan residents to make a voting plan,” The Detroit News, September
  16, 2020. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/09/16/whitmer-benson-urge-michigan- residents-make-voting-plan/5821769002/
• 26 United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs, Order,
  September 10, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/AZ-Order.pdf
• 27 Ahmad, Zahra, “Michigan court: SOS can mail absentee ballot requests to registered voters,” MLive, August 26,
  2020. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/08/michigan-court-sos-can-mail-absentee-ballot-requests-to- registered-voters.html
• 28 Severns, Maggie, “Soros pumps more than $28 million into Democratic groups for 2020,” Politico, April 10,
  2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/10/soros-pumps-28-million-democratic-groups-2020-179367
• 29 Brennan Center for Justice, “Davis v. Benson,” September 16, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
  work/court-cases/davis-v-benson
• 30 Davis v. Benson, the State of Michigan in the Court of Claims, “Amicus Brief,” June 16, 2020.
  https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/Davis%20v%20Benson%20-%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
• 31 Brennan Center for Justice, “Davis v. Benson,” September 16, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
  work/court-cases/davis-v-benson
• 32 “Democracy Docket: States by Impact,” https://www.democracydocket.com/case_type/impact/
• 33 Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada, October 7,
  2020. https://casetext.com/case/election-integrity-project-llc-v-eighth-judicial-dist-court
• 34 Pollak, Joel, “Marc Elias, Democrat Lawyer Who Pushed Vote-by-Mail in 2020, Also Behind ‘Russia Dossier’ in
  2016,” Breitbart, https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/04/marc-elias-democrat-lawyer-who-pushed-vote-by- mail-in-2020-also-behind-russia-dossier-in-2016/
• 35 George Soros, the man who ‘broke the Bank of England’, backing secret plot to thwart Brexit (telegraph.co.uk)
• 36 “Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018),” Ballotpedia, November 3, 2018.
  https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_3,_Voting_Policies_in_State_Constitution_Initiative_(2018)
• 37 Beggin, Riley, “Who’s funding Michigan’s voting rights ballot proposal?” Bridge Michigan, October 11, 2018.
  https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/whos-funding-michigans-voting-rights-ballot-proposal
• 38 Mack, Julie, “Michigan approves Proposal 3’s election reforms,” MLive, November 7, 2018.
  https://www.mlive.com/news/2018/11/hold_michigan_proposal_3s_elec.html
• 39 Brat, Dave, “Dave Brat’s linkage of George Soros to Abigail Spanberger gets Pants on Fire,” November 2, 2018.
  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/02/dave-brat/dave-brats-linkage-george-soros-abigail-spanberger/
• 40 “Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018),” Ballotpedia, November 6, 2018.
  https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_5,_Automatic_Voter_Registration_via_DMV_Initiative_(2018)
• 41 “Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018),” Ballotpedia, November 6, 2018.
  https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_5,_Automatic_Voter_Registration_via_DMV_Initiative_(2018)
• 42 Malkin, Michelle, “Who’s Funding Shady Ballot Harvesting Schemes?,” Rasmussen Reports, September 30, 2020.
  https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michelle_malkin/who_s_ funding_shady_ballot_harvesting_schemes
• 43 Amistad Project, “Amistad Project: Time To Fully Unmask Mark Zuckerberg’s $350 Million Funnelled For Election Administration And The Motivation Behind It,” Cision PR Newswire, October 28, 2020.
  https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amistad-project-time-to-fully-unmask-mark-zuckerbergs-350-million- funnelled-for-election-administration-and-the-motivation-behind-it-301161751.html
• 44 Vielmetti, Bruce, “Judge: No apparent law against cities using private grants to help stage elections during a pandemic,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 14, 2020.
  https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/14/judge-oks-cities-use-private-grants-stage- elections/3654110001/
• 45 Amistad Project, “Amistad Project: Time To Fully Unmask Mark Zuckerberg’s $350 Million Funnelled For Election Administration And The Motivation Behind It,” Cision PR Newswire, October 28, 2020.
  https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amistad-project-time-to-fully-unmask-mark-zuckerbergs-350-million- funnelled-for-election-administration-and-the-motivation-behind-it-301161751.html
• 46 W.J. Kennedy, “Zuckerberg’s massive donation to ‘non-partisan’ election group not so non-partisan, challenger
  argues,” Legal Newswire, December 21, 2020. https://legalnewsline.com/stories/552145492-zuckerberg-s-massive- donation-to-non-partisan-election-group-not-so-non-partisan-challenger-argues
• 47 Wisconsin Election Commission, “Jay Stone’s Sworn WEC Complaint,” August 28, 2020.
  https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/a2/60/11463618/jaystone.pdf
• 48 “Mark Zuckerberg speaks fluent Mandarin during Q&A in Beijing,” KiniTv, October 23, 2014.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTmHtOSqHTk
• 49 Svab, Petr, “Facebook Fact-Checker Funded by Chinese Money Through TikTok,” The Epoch Times, December
  10, 2020. https://www.theepochtimes.com/facebook-fact-checker-funded-by-chinese-money-through- tiktok_3610009.html
• 50 Taylor, Adam, “Why would Mark Zuckerberg want Facebook employees to read the Chinese president’s book?”
  The Washington Post, December 8, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/08/why- does-mark-zuckerberg-want-facebook-employees-to-read-the-chinese-presidents-book/
• 51 Taylor, Adam, “Why would Mark Zuckerberg want Facebook employees to read the Chinese president’s book?”
  The Washington Post, December 8, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/08/why- does-mark-zuckerberg-want-facebook-employees-to-read-the-chinese-presidents-book/
• 52 King, Hope, “Mark Zuckerberg met with China’s propaganda chief,” CNN, March 21, 2016.
  https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/21/technology/zuckerberg-china/
• 53 ] United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, The New Georgia Project et al vs. Brad Raffensperger, May 8, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-
  content/uploads/sites/41/2020/05/2020-05-08-New-GA-Project-et-al.-v.-Raffensperger-Complaint.pdf
• 54 “A Second Agreement In Georgia Between Democrats and Gwinnett County Is Discovered,” The Spectator,
  November 20, 2020. https://thespectator.info/2020/11/20/exclusive-a-second-agreement-in-georgia-between- democrats-and-gwinnett-county-is-discovered/
• 55 Klein, Aaron, “Leaked Memo: George Soros Foundation Seeking to Expand U.S. Online Voting,” Breitbart News,
  September 9, 2016. https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2016/09/09/leaked-memo-george-soros-foundation- seeking-expand-u-s-online-voting/
• 56 Brennan Center for Justice, “How to Protect the 2020 Vote from the Coronavirus,” March 16, 2020. (PDF Document provided upon request).
• 57 Brennan Center for Justice, “How to Protect the 2020 Vote from the Coronavirus,” March 16, 2020. (PDF Document provided upon request).
• 58 State of Wisconsin Supreme Court, Jefferson v. Dane County, March 27, 2020.
  https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283
• 59 Wisconsin State Government, “My Vote,” https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/ProofofResidence
• 60 MacIver News, “A Quarter-Million Wisconsin Voters Claim To Be ‘Indefinitely Confined’ And Not Bound By
  Voter ID,” MacIver Institute, October 29, 2020. https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2020/10/a-quarter-million- wisconsin-voters-claim-to-be-indefinitely-confined/
• 61 In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Democratic Party et al. v. Kathy Boockvar, July 10,
  2020. https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PDP-v.-Boockvar-Commonwealth-Court- Petition.pdf
• 62 Lai, Jonathan, “10,000 Pennsylvania votes are in limbo. They won’t change the outcome. They could still have a huge impact.,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 20, 2020.
  https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/pennsylvania-late-mail-ballots-supreme-court-20201220.html
• 63 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 64 Ahmad, Zahra, “Michigan court: SOS can mail absentee ballot requests to registered voters,” MLive, August 26,
  2020. https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/08/michigan-court-sos-can-mail-absentee-ballot-requests-to- registered-voters.html
• 65 Marley, Patrick, “Wisconsin Elections Commission approves sending 2.7 million absentee ballot request forms to
  voters,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 7, 2020.
  https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/17/wisconsin-elections-commission-finalize-mailing- absentee-ballot-reqest-forms/5329007002/
• 66 Rakich, Nathaniel, “More States Are Using Ballot Drop Boxes. Why Are They So Controversial?”
  FiveThirtyEight, October 5, 2020. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-states-are-using-ballot-drop-boxes-why- are-they-so-controversial/
• 67 Georgia State Election Board, “Absentee Voting,”
  https://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/SEB%20Emergency%20Rule%20183-1-14-0.6-.14.pdf
• 68 Niesse, Marc, “Where are absentee ballot drop boxes in metro Atlanta?,” AJC, October 7, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/politics/where-are-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-in-metro- atlanta/YWWVPFUDFZF5ZB6JLH5S33UIEU/
• 69 Campbell, Bob, “Absentee ballot drop boxes boom in Michigan, despite controversy elsewhere,” Bridge
  Michigan, October 5, 2020. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-boom- michigan-despite-controversy-elsewhere
• 70 Stanton, Ryan, “New ballot drop boxes installed at 5 outdoor locations around Ann Arbor,” Bridge Michigan,
  October 20, 2020. https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/10/new-ballot-drop-boxes-installed-at-5-outdoor- locations-around-ann-arbor.html
• 71 Campbell, Bob, “Absentee ballot drop boxes boom in Michigan, despite controversy elsewhere,” Bridge
  Michigan, https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-boom-michigan-despite- controversy-elsewhere
• 72 “Michigan has more than 700 absentee ballot drop-off locations – find the one you should use,” WXYZ, August
  17, 2020. https://www.wxyz.com/news/election-2020/michigan-has-more-than-700-absentee-ballot-drop-off- locations-find-the-one-you-should-use
• 73 LeBlanc, Beth, “Whitmer, Benson urges Michigan residents to make a voting plan,” The Detroit News, September
  16, 2020. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/09/16/whitmer-benson-urge-michigan- residents-make-voting-plan/5821769002/
• 74 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 75 Wisconsin Elections Commission, “Absentee Ballot Drop Box Information,” August 19, 2020.
  https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/2020-08/Drop%20Box%20Final.pdf
• 76 The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Donald Trump for President et al v.
  Kathy Boockvar, June 29, 2020. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/trump-pa.pdf
• 77 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 78 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 79 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 80 Re, Greg, “What is ballot harvesting?” April 14, 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-ballot-
  harvesting
• 81 Assembly Bill 4, August 3, 2020. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/32nd2020Special/Bill/7150/Text
  Assembly Bill 4, August 3, 2020.
  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/32nd2020Special/Bill/7150/Overview
• 82 “AB 4 – Authorizes Mostly Mail-In Election for 2020 Presidential Election – Nevada Key Vote,” 3 August 2020.
  https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/28626/74234/authorizes-mostly-mail-in-election-for-2020-presidential-election
• 83 “AB 4 – Authorizes Mostly Mail-In Election for 2020 Presidential Election – Nevada Key Vote,” 3 August 2020.
  https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/28626/74234/authorizes-mostly-mail-in-election-for-2020-presidential-election
• 84 Snyder, Riley, et al, “Secretary of State Seeks regulation on newly allowed ‘ballot harvesting’ practice, wants collectors to report to her office,” The Nevada Independent, August 17, 2020.
  https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/secretary-of-state-seeks-regulation-on-newly-allowed-ballot-harvesting- practice-wants-collectors-to-report-to-her-office
• 85 Georgia State Government, “National Election Security Lab Report On November Election Shows Sec Raffensperger’s Ballot Harvesting Ban Holds Strong,”
  https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/national_election_security_lab_report_on_november_election_shows_sec_raf fenspergers_ballot_harvesting_ban_holds_strong#:~:text=In%20April%202019%2C%20the%20Georgia,the%20leg islation%20banned%20ballot%20harvesting
  See, also: Wisconsin Statute 6.84(2), Wisconsin Statute 6.87(4)(b)1, Wisconsin Statute 6.87(4)(b).
  https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/4/b/1
• 86 Hoft, Joe, “Numerous Democrat Led Non-Profits Are Connected to Likely Illegal Absentee Ballot Harvesting in Georgia After the Election,” The Gateway Pundit, November 9, 2020.
  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/numerous-democrat-led-non-profits-connected-likely-illegal-absentee- ballot-harvesting-georgia-election/
• 87 Hoft, Joe, “Numerous Democrat Led Non-Profits Are Connected to Likely Illegal Absentee Ballot Harvesting in Georgia After the Election,” The Gateway Pundit, November 9, 2020.
  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/numerous-democrat-led-non-profits-connected-likely-illegal-absentee- ballot-harvesting-georgia-election/
• 88 Ramsland Jr., Russell. “Antrim Michigan Forensics Report.” William Bailey v. Antrim County, Michigan, December 13, 2020.
  https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf
• 89 Fair Fight Action, “Election Systems And Software (ES&S) Corruption Doc,” July 16, 2019.
  https://fairfight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Election-Systems-and-Software-ESS-Corruption-07162019.pdf
• 90 Niesse, Marc, “Georgia bets on new voting system amid high-stakes election,” AJC, November 1, 2019.
  https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/georgia-bets-new-voting-system-amid-high-stakes- election/XVR7Jw5i1J7MiZ11O8xUZK/
• 91 Dominion Voting Systems, “Setting The Record Straight: Facts & Rumors,” January 1, 2021.
  https://www.dominionvoting.com/election-2020-setting-the-record-straight-georgia/
• 92 Dominion Voting Systems, “Setting The Record Straight: Facts & Rumors,” January 1, 2021.
  https://www.dominionvoting.com/election-2020-setting-the-record-straight-pennsylvania/
• 93 Schweigert, Steve, “Here’s a list of voting machines used in every county across the state,” November 6, 2019.
  https://www.fox43.com/article/news/heres-a-list-of-voting-machines-used-in-every-county-across-the-state/521- 5797a12a-01ee-42aa-a08e-810a7205b52f
• 94 Inside Alerts, “Elections Watchdog Says Wisconsin Refused to Warn Clerks About Flawed Dominion ICE Voting
  Machines,” November 23, 2020. https://www.insidesources.com/elections-watchdog-says-wisconsin-refused-to- warn-clerks-about-flawed-dominion-ice-voting-machines/
• 95 Department of Technology, Management, and Budget, Michigan State Government, Notice of Contract.
  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/071B7700117_Dominion_555356_7.pdf
• 96 Leingang, Rachel, “Ducey objects to plan to let some Arizonans in hospitals and nursing homes cast ballots via video call,” AZ Central, September 22, 2020.
  https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/22/arizona-voters-hospitals-and-nursing-homes- may-cast-ballot-via-video/5858551002/
• 97 Leingang, Rachel, “Ducey objects to plan to let some Arizonans in hospitals and nursing homes cast ballots via video call,” AZ Central, September 22, 2020.
  https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/22/arizona-voters-hospitals-and-nursing-homes- may-cast-ballot-via-video/5858551002/
• 98 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 99 Dolby, Nuha, “Here are the 4 voting issues at the heart of Trump’s Wisconsin election lawsuit,” Milwaukee
  Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2020. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/01/trump- wisconsin-lawsuit-four-voting-issues-challenged-court/6465214002/
• 100 “How do election workers match signatures? (2020),” Ballotpedia,
  https://ballotpedia.org/How_do_election_workers_match_signatures%3F_(2020)
• 101 “How do election workers match signatures? (2020),” Ballotpedia,
  https://ballotpedia.org/How_do_election_workers_match_signatures%3F_(2020)
• 102 Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. (“DPG”), the DSCC, and the DCCC, Compromise Settlement and Release,
  March 6, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf
• 103 The Gateway Pundit, “Lin Wood Files Lawsuit Challenging Georgia’s Secretary Of State’s Dark Unconstitutional Agreement With Hillary Attorney Marc Elias,” November 14, 2020.
  https://clarion.causeaction.com/2020/11/14/lin-wood-files-lawsuit-challenging-georgias-secretary-of-states-dark- unconstitutional-agreement-with-hillary-attorney-marc-elias/
• 104 Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. (“DPG”), the DSCC, and the DCCC, Compromise Settlement and Release,
  March 6, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/GA-Settlement-1.pdf
• 105 Niesse, Marc, “Trump supporter sues Georgia in an attempt to stop election results,” AJC, November 13, 2020.
  https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-supporter-sues-georgia-in-attempt-to-stop-election- results/3A4WOXPD3JB3NMGREX5ZBUYDPY/
• 106 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 107 “Cure period for absentee and mail-in ballots,” Ballotpedia,
  https://ballotpedia.org/Cure_period_for_absentee_and_mail-in_ballots
• 108 Assembly Bill 4, August 3, 2020. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/32nd2020Special/Bill/7150/Text
• 109 Assembly Bill 4, August 3, 2020.
  https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/32nd2020Special/Bill/7150/Overview
• 110 Navarro, Peter, “The Immaculate Deception,” December 17, 2020. https://populist.press/wp-
  content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf
• 111 United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona Democratic Party v. Katie Hobbs, Order,
  September 10, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/07/AZ-Order.pdf
• 112 Knowles, Hannah, “As Arizona count ticks on, Democratic volunteers race to make sure ballots are not rejected,”
  Washington Post, November 10, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/10/arizona-ballot-curing/
• 113 Giles, Ben, “Arizona Voters Have Until 5 p.m. Tuesday To Cure Ballots,” KJZZ, November 9, 2020.
  https://kjzz.org/content/1634458/arizona-voters-have-until-5-pm-tuesday-cure-ballots
• 114 BeMiller, Haley, “Fact check: Wisconsin clerks followed the guidance in place since 2016 about witnesses and absentee ballots,” USA Today, November 11, 2020.
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/11/fact-check-wisc-clerks-followed-2016-guidance- absentee-ballots/6253055002/
• 115 Wisconsin Elections Commission, “The 2020 Election for President of the United States, Petition for Hand
  Recount,” November 18, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Recount- Petition_President_2020.pdf
• 116 BeMiller, Haley, “Fact check: Wisconsin clerks followed the guidance in place since 2016 about witnesses and absentee ballots,” USA Today, November 11, 2020.
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/11/fact-check-wisc-clerks-followed-2016-guidance- absentee-ballots/6253055002/
• 117 NRS 293.325, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-293.html
• 118 Pennsylvania General Assembly, Act 12, March 27, 2020.
  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2020&sessInd=0&act=12
• 119 Bernstein, Leandra, “Trump campaign claims Philadelphia defying court-ordered election observation,” NBC
  Montana, November 5, 2020. https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/trump-campaign-allowed-to-observe- ballot-counting-in-pennsylvania-legal-victory
• 120 Mosk, Matthew, et al, “Trump files election lawsuits in Michigan, Pennsylvania alleging lack of access for poll
  observers,” ABC News, November 5, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-files-election-lawsuits-michigan- pennsylvania-alleging-lack/story?id=74032924
• 121 CBS3 Staff, “Philadelphia Court Decision: Poll Watchers Now Allowed Within 6 Feet Of Ballot Counting At Pennsylvania Convention Center,” CBS Philly, November 5,
  2020. https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/11/05/philadelphia-court-decision-poll-watchers-now-allowed-within- 6-feet-of-ballot-counting-at-pennsylvania-convention-center/
• 122 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Donald J. Trump for President v. Jocelyn
  Benson, November 8, 2020. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20404059/trump-campaign-election- lawsuit-michigan-federal.pdf