Focus On The Signatures

278
0

Some news stories have recently made a splash in the headlines related to election integrity, specifically those concerning voting machines and election-related electronic data. Two stories seem to be grabbing the most attention. The first started in June when the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “status update” report warning about voting machine vulnerabilities. The other came earlier this month with the arrest of Eugene Yu—founder and CEO of the software company, Konnech—by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. He was arrested on charges of illegally warehousing U.S. poll workers’ personal, confidential information on servers located in China.

What is odd is the timing of these stories—dropping just months or even weeks before the 2022 midterm elections. After all, corporate media, government officials, and the Left have spent the last two years accusing the Right and Trump supporters of being dangerous “conspiracy theorists” and “election deniers” for raising such concerns in the wake of the 2020 presidential election chaos. Those same people are now having to pretend it never happened or backtrack—most laughably highlighted when the Pee Tape conspiracy ragThe New York Times—had to “circle back” and “beclown” itself in less than 24 hours.

That aged well … Pulitzer-worthy🙄

The timing of this has conservatives looking around wondering, “What’s going on?” Why would the ‘cabal’ collectively take these actions and humiliate themselves—and why now? UncoverDC’s (UDC) own Tracy Beanz asked some of the same questions during her recent interview with Joe Pags.

“[I]t’s the one thing that seriously has me scratching my head. Why? It’s very weird. Why [Los Angeles] and why [L.A. District Attorney George Gascón]? It’s just weird. Usually, they don’t prosecute crimes, so it makes no sense.”
~Tracy Beanz on The Joe Pags Show (Oct. 6, 2022)

After some consideration, allow us to present a theory: You are watching a Disinformation Campaign unfolding in real-time.

The purpose? To misdirect election integrity efforts away from where they will have the most impact—namely, enforcing safeguards related to mail-in ballots. And more specifically, Signature Match Checks.

As Adam Carter detailed as far back as December 2020 in The Washington Pundit (TWP), there appeared to be a well-coordinated disinformation campaign during the 2020 presidential election. He later elaborated on it further in a four-part exposé. As per this theory, the objective was to focus attention on voting machines and electronic hacking issues and away from the issues related to mass mail-in balloting that would famously later be exposed in Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary ‘2000 Mules’.

Before going any further, we must be crystal clear on one point. We do not believe voting machines are safe. The authors of this column advocate for in-person, same-day voting, on paper ballots with Voter ID, and limited exceptions for absentee voting—i.e., a ballot is requested by application from a constitutionally qualified voter with cause (military personnel, invalids, etc.). Get rid of voting machines in elections entirely.

Congressman Devin Nunes speaking to Buck Sexton on Hill TV ‘Rising’ in July 2018 about the dangers of electronic voting systems

This is a personal opinion, but we believe voting machines have been designed to be hacked—with various built-in backdoors—because the U.S. Intelligence Community wants to be able to use them to steal elections in other countries. And as we have seen in every election cycle since at least 2016—U.S. Intel has no qualms about interfering in U.S. elections on behalf of their preferred candidates. So they would not even think twice about using electronic manipulation to change the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections if they felt they could get away with it.

But would they give us a heads-up by allowing CISA to issue the warning in June if that was their plan? That is highly unlikely. If there is a political scheme underway—and U.S. Intel is involved—the most logical explanation is that it is part of a psychological operation (or “PsyOp”) to divert attention away from the real problem.


“Release the Kraken”: Are they Running the Same Playbook Again?

With the benefit of hindsight, we now have a better picture of what happened during the 2020 “election fortification.” Pollster Richard “People’s Pundit” Baris, former Director of Data and Strategy for the Trump campaign Matt Braynard, and longtime election lawyer Robert Barnes have all analyzed precinct-level data and come to the same conclusion—voting machine manipulation cannot explain the outcome of the 2020 election. There is no significant statistical difference in “Biden overvote” between counties using voting machines and those without. The counties that show excess Biden votes correlate to the ones that saw an unusual surge in mail-in ballots. They stole it the old-fashioned way. They stuffed the ballot box with fraudulent mail-in ballots. But they needed to distract us long enough to get away with it because:

🚨 Spoiler Alert 🚨 – If A Dead Person Votes, The Signature Ain’t Gonna Match  

Listen to Baris & Barnes in an episode of What Are the Odds? from early December 2020. Drop boxes? Nursing homes? This segment could substitute as a trailer for 2000 Mules and what it exposed nearly two years later.

Like in other disinformation campaigns we have witnessed, such as those associated with the Global Covid-19 Pandemic Response and the Jan 6th Capitol Hill Riot, it was complex with multifaceted objectives. Those behind the scheme were able to plant the seeds for the campaign ahead of time—including infiltrating the camps of well-meaning conservative influencers. Electronic voting machine hacking is actually a Democrat conspiracy theory used to accuse Republicans of stealing elections and to undermine their legitimacy dating as far back as at least 2004. So those running the operation knew there would be endless rabbit holes to send Trump supporters looking down, but would ultimately amount to nothing because they’re the ones that made it up in the first place.

Trailer for the HBO documentary ‘Hacking Democracy’ when Democrats and the corporate media accused the campaign of Pres. George W. Bush of rigging voting machines to steal the state of Ohio and the 2004 presidential election from Sen. John Kerry

The two primary objectives of the scheme were:

A. Divert the attention of Trump’s supporters, independent journalists, and grassroots researchers to crowdsource information away from issues related to mail-in ballots, dirty voter rolls, etc. (or what we will refer to as “2000 Mules issues”) and focus on issues related to voting machines, electronic hacking, etc. (i.e., “Kraken issues”).

B. Get the information related to the Kraken issues mixed together with the more legitimate 2000 Mules issues to give judges political cover to avoid having to do their job and intervene. Likewise, it was mixed together to discredit any idea of election malfeasance in the minds of normies as “conspiracy theories” to keep public pressure from mounting and run-out-the-clock until the election could be certified for Joe Biden.

There was a common pattern in the 2020 election contest lawsuits. Judges (many of them Trump-appointed) in their decisions would harp on Kraken issues presented in the legal briefs (or in the news), gloss over or completely ignore the 2000 Mules issues, then dismiss the case on some bogus “lack of standing” grounds—never allowing evidence to be presented or case heard on the merits.

That’s how they stole it and got away with it.

So are they doing it again? Suddenly conservative social media and free speech platforms are once again filled with posts about voting machines, hacking, and election data as 2000 Mules fades from the news cycle. The Konnech story does not involve vote count data. Still, it hits on a lot of the same themes—electronic data, cybersecurity, foreign interference by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), etc.

Former CISA Director Chris Krebs recently added fuel to the fire with his own Twitter thread. He was presumably commenting on the arrest of Eugene Yu and highlighted recent alerts from both CISA and the FBI. President Trump famously was forced to fire Krebs after declaring the 2020 election was the “most secure in American history”—despite widespread reports of irregularities or any meaningful investigation.

Krebs again stresses how “safe & secure” America’s election infrastructure is and how it’s unlikely to be hacked. This is an interesting declaration from the man who oversaw CISA when during that time, the SolarWinds hack went undetected for months—the largest such cyberattack in U.S. history.

Krebs seems to hit on another theme that might indicate an added component to the new 2022 PsyOp—the Left’s obsession with “threats against poll workers.” This seems to be the same tactic the Biden administration used to gin up hysteria about overblown “threats against school board members” to label PTA parents—outraged by Critical Race Theory and Transgender Ideology being taught to their children in school—as “domestic terrorists” to justify siccing the politically weaponized FBI on them. The latest hype about threats to poll workers seems to be meant to counteract the Precinct Strategy—most notably promoted by Steve Bannon—that has the Left (and establishment right) in complete meltdown.

The obvious intention is to paint America First patriots—volunteering as poll workers or election observers—as “election deniers” and “radicalized insider threats” to intimidate them—and use them as a justification to exclude them from the process of safeguarding elections.

It is interesting to note Eugene Yu was arrested for storing the private information of election workers across the country on servers readily accessible by the CCP. This seems to align perfectly with the Left’s narrative on the topic. It also gives the FBI the pretext it needs to open up a counterintelligence investigation related to poll workers and begin spying on whoever they wish—which could explain the reason and timing of the story.


Democrats Know the Importance of Signatures. Republicans… Not So Much.

In the wake of the hotly contested 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, President George W. Bush formed the Commission on Federal Election Reform—a bipartisan commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III (R-TX). The commission was tasked with making recommendations to the newly formed Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to “explore how to maximize both ballot access and ballot integrity.”

In 2005, the commission issued the Carter-Baker Report. The report addressed the 2004 allegations of voting machine manipulation in Ohio but still stated:

“Absentee ballots [i.e., mail-in ballots] remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

The report went on to elaborate on the reasons. The ballots could be mailed to the wrong address or otherwise stolen (ex., if mailed to large apartment complexes or nursing homes). Voters could be coerced through blackmail, intimidation, or threats outside secured polling locations. The ballots could also be purchased or votes bribed due to the lack of secrecy in the voting booth. This represented the most significant risk of fraud and abuse by third-party organizations, campaigns, or political activists. Hmm… kind of sounds like we’ve heard that someplace before.

Screenshot from the Carter-Baker Report by the Commission on Federal Election Reform (2005)

Given the inherent risks, the commission made proposals to mitigate potential fraud. While not a perfect solution, the commission recommended each state build a Voter Information Database to capture digital images of each voter’s signature from sources like driver’s license renewals or Voter ID applications. The signature on the mail-in ballot envelope could then be compared with the digital signature images from the individual’s database Voter File to ensure they matched—verifying at least the voter who was issued the ballot was, in fact, the person who cast it.

Screenshot from the Carter-Baker Report by the Commission on Federal Election Reform (2005)

In May 2021, election attorney Robert Barnes gave a speech for Hillsdale College. He discussed the history of Signature Matches in elections and his experiences representing President Trump during the 2020 election challenges in Georgia.

Before the 2020 election, signature match was the basis for nearly every major election challenge. Yet somehow—beginning in 2020 and beyond—it has become an afterthought; well, at least for Republicans. President Barack Obama famously won his first-ever election to the Illinois state senate in 1996 by getting every single one of his primary opponents stricken from the ballot using—wait for it—signature matches. Obama would years later—during the 2008 Democratic Primaries—go on MSNBC. In an interview with Chris Matthews, when asked about a proposed mail-in primary in Florida, Obama stressed the need for strict signature match enforcement to prevent the Hillary Clinton campaign from using mail-in ballot fraud to steal away a victory. Democrats are good at stealing elections and preventing them from being stolen.

Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón

Just recently, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón—the same man behind the arrest of Eugene Yu—dodged the same fate as his San Francisco counterpart and fellow Soros-backed D.A., Chesa Boudin. Gascón avoided his own recall effort using—wait for it—signature matches. The Recall Campaign is currently suing the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder to overturn the rulings. Still, Gascón was able to get almost 30% of the signatures on his recall petition thrown out due to signature matches or eligibility. Well, ain’t that a coinkydink?

So Democrats are well aware of the importance of this issue. Marc Elias is the attorney behind the funding and creation of the Steele Dossier in 2016 on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. He was also still a partner at the high-powered, Democratic party-linked law firm Perkins Coie throughout the 2020 campaign and election contest lawsuits on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Elias was the key legal driving force behind the Democrat’s effort to expand mail-in balloting and weaken election integrity laws—most notably signature-matching laws.

Marc Elias and a screenshot from his April 2020 op-ed in The Atlantic – ‘How to Fix Our Voting Rules Before November’
Kanye West embracing President Trump during an October 2018 Oval Office meeting

The Democrat’s concern to “protect voters” and prevent “inadvertently disenfranchising” them seemed to be somewhat selective in 2020 (unsurprisingly). Kanye West—who has been in the news himself recently—launched his own bid for the presidency during the 2020 election. Democratic attorneys managed to get him removed from the ballot in many key states using—wait for it—signatures matching. They even went so far as to put him under criminal investigation, claiming he had used fraudulent means to obtain signatures for his ballot petitions. Had Kanye remained on the ballot—and given Biden’s razor-thin margin of victory in multiple key swing states—he likely would have siphoned off enough of the black vote from Biden, and Donald Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today (with even more of a margin of victory.)

Democrats show no sign of letting up, either. Just recently, they got five candidates booted out of the GOP primary ballot for Michigan governor—including former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who at times held a commanding lead in polls over Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer—using … you know what’s coming … signature matches.

And the list goes on and on and on.


How To #StopTheSteal

In a typical election cycle, mail-in ballots get rejected based on signature verification at a rate of 1-2%. The rejection rate of people using mail-in voting for the first time jumps to anywhere from 5%-10%. And that is under normal circumstances. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, many states chose to adopt mass mail-in voting procedures on-the-fly in the 2020 election—often in violation of the laws set by their state legislatures. So the natural assumption would be to see those rejection rates skyrocket—with large swathes of the electorate attempting to vote by mail for the first time and with little time to be educated on the procedures. Well, did they? What do you think?

From the November 2020 Newsmax article ‘Ballot Rejection Rates Historically Low in Key Battlegrounds

Signature verification rejection rates plummeted across the country—often down to fractions of 1% in many of the key swing states. Given Biden’s razor-thin margins of victory and his astronomical share of the mail-in vote—if the rejection rates had been anywhere close to their historical norms, President Trump would have likely carried all six of the closely contested states that were certified for Joe Biden (AZ, GA, MI, PA, NV, & WI) and possibly a few more.

Yet despite all these problems, we still have not managed to get a single signature match audit in any state for the 2020 election—Zero for 50. Only once was anything resembling a signature match audit allowed; in a December 2020 case—Ward v. Jackson et al.—in Maricopa County, Arizona, of all places.

Arizona Superior Court Judge Randall Warner allowed each side to examine a sample of 100 mail-in ballot envelopes. The Democrats’ expert in the case found an 11% error rate—that extrapolated over the entire population would represent 30 times Biden’s margin of victory.

When the Full Forensic Audit of Maricopa County was conducted later in the Summer of 2021, a full signature match audit was not included. Auditors were only able to gain access to electronic images of mail-in ballot envelopes late in the process, but not the Voter Files to compare the signatures.

Summary of results from Dr. Shiva’s (EchoMail) report included in the Arizona Audit Report

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai was enlisted to do a quick review of the ballot images. But with only a short window of time, he could still find numerous issues and anomalies that alone represented nearly twice Biden’s margin of victory in Arizona.

Keep in mind these issues are where the signature was so bad or should have been otherwise rejected outright and not even valid enough to qualify for a signature match check. As both Trump election lawyers Jenna Ellis and Robert Barnes have stated in interviews, Democrat’s high-powered attorneys like Perkins Coie’s main area of focus during the 2020 election contest lawsuits was signature match issues.

See, that’s how a disinformation campaign works; get your opposition to commit most of their resources where it will do the least good and have the least impact.

Gee … who could’ve seen that one coming?
Screenshot of the Oct. 14, 2022, Politico article ‘The voting machine hacking threat you probably haven’t heard about’

Just before TWP went to press with this story Politico of all places, dropped an article about voting machine hacking. The absurdly named article “The voting machine hacking threat you probably haven’t heard about” warns about the risks cellular modems pose to election system networks—making them vulnerable to outsider hacking. This is the type of article that would have been labeled “election denialism” and used to get independent media organizations banished off the internet for “spreading dangerous disinformation” at any point over the last two years. Politico is hardly a MAGA-friendly publication. Would they drop this article out of fear foreign interference or electronic hacking might be used to prevent America First Republican candidates from being elected? Highly doubtful. So why drop it now?

This seems to be additional evidence of an accelerating PsyOp to focus attention away from mail-in ballots and onto voting machines. And it appears corporate media is—once again—happy to play their part.

The scheme seems to have two objectives. First is to intimidate or exclude as many America First patriots as possible by labeling them “dangerous insider threats” to thin out the ranks. The second is to get as many of the remaining volunteers distracted and focused on issues unlikely to be the source of election malfeasance.

For every election observer watching each voting machine terminal like a hawk, that’s one not watching the backdoor when the mail van pulls up—loaded with boxes of “late arriving ballots.” While we take the time to learn to read computer code or understand advanced calculus to figure out “the algorithm”; they’re in the next room pulling suitcases full of ballots from underneath tables and furiously running them through the counting machines. Or most importantly, we do not have a representative observing the election day signature match verification process.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.

You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.

The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known.

Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend.

In war, practice deception, and you will succeed.”

~ Passages from ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu

Now, the purpose of this column is not to “black pill” you. The Left can get away with these games on signatures because conservatives are largely unaware of the issue, and we believe that is by design. Hence, the reason for the disinformation campaign is to focus on voting machines. Again, we are not saying voting machines are safe. We are not even saying they could not attempt to use electronic hacking to manipulate results now or in the future. What we are saying is that’s not how they are currently stealing elections. And it’s not all that difficult to stop. Attention just needs to be brought to this issue, and we must allocate resources appropriately to safeguard against it.

As was seen in 2000 Mules, Democrats rely on dirty voter rolls. They have perfected the art of identifying registered voters who are unlikely to cast a ballot themselves in any given election—whether they have died, moved away, are not politically active, etc. Almost all the ballots used in these ballot-stuffing schemes are not being filled out or signed by the registered voter. Therefore, a strict signature check will likely catch most fraudulent ballots and make it nearly impossible for Democrats to steal an election using the same method.

Pollster Richard “People’s Pundit” Baris and Trump election attorney Robert Barnes explaining how Democrats likely stole the election from President Trump in an episode of ‘What Are the Odds?’ in early December 2020

Almost every jurisdiction requires mail-in ballots received early to be securely stored and unopened until election day. So all mail-in ballots are canvassed, opened, and counted at the same time regardless of how many days of early voting are allowed beforehand. The most crucial moment is the ballot canvassing on election day. This is when the name, information, and signature on the outside of the ballot envelope are checked in the Voter File to verify the ballot has been received from an eligible, constitutionally qualified voter and the signatures match. If the information on the ballot envelope fails any portion of the canvass, the envelope is set aside—with the ballot still inside—and remains uncounted.

If the information on the ballot envelope is verified, it is then opened, and the ballot is separated and placed in the stack to be counted. Due to federal laws requiring the Secret Ballot (also called the Australian Ballot), there is no way to go back and determine which envelope and ballot were originally paired together. If problems with the mail-in envelopes and/or signatures are later found, there is no means to go back and determine what ballots need to be excluded—or what the correct vote tallies should have been. If the ballots in dispute exceed the winning candidate’s margin of victory, the election becomes irredeemably compromised. The only remedy at that point is for courts (or state legislatures in the case of a presidential election) to step in and provide relief. And as we’ve seen, that is a tough mountain to climb.

Democrats used the COVID-19 pandemic precautions as an excuse to exclude election observers the right to meaningfully observe the canvassing and counting of the ballots in 2020. That will not be the case this time around. A slew of subsequent election-related lawsuits has made it clear standing on the other side of an auditorium holding a pair of binoculars does not constitute “meaningfully observation.”

America First election observers must demand the right to meaningfully observe every step of the ballot canvassing and counting process and make timely objections—not just leave it to local election officials. Jurisdictions should already have the right to observe and raise objections codified into law. If the state or local GOP committees are not making plans or refuse, then candidates themselves have the right to place their own representatives to observe each step of the process. You should reach out and ensure these plans are in place well ahead of election day.

Every mail-in ballot cast in the 2022 election and all elections beyond should have an America First representative observing and agree the signatures do, in fact, match or raise an objection and have the ballot set aside. Keep the fraudulent ballots from winding up in the vote count in the first place.

In the event of a disputed election, the Republican base should demand an immediate, full signature match audit. You don’t need electron microscopes, five and a half months, or 6 million dollars. That is completely impractical in an election contest situation when you only have weeks at most to seek remedy. Signature matches are simple to do; bank tellers and grocery store clerks do it every single day. That’s why your signature is printed on your driver’s license, and you are asked to sign the back of your credit card. A signature match audit can be conducted in a matter of days—if not hours—at minimal expense and will quickly expose any ballot stuffing scheme.

Don’t fall for the ruse of voting machines and electronic hacking. Once the mail-in ballot stuffing schemes are stopped, and enough America First candidates are elected to office, we can begin to change the laws. We can end mass mail-in balloting and get electronic voting systems removed from our elections entirely.

That’s how you Stop The Steal.

Tracy Beanz
Editor-in-Chief at UncoverDC | Website | + posts

UncoverDC Editor-in-Chief, Tracy Beanz, is an investigative journalist. Focused on bringing integrity and ethics back to journalism, she is known for her factual research into the details few others pursue. Tracy hosts the popular podcast, Dark to Light. She is also a social media phenom who amassed nearly 600,000 Twitter followers with her video reports receiving millions of views before being banned by "Big Tech."

Follow Beanz on Telegram @TracybeanzOfficial and Truth Social @tracybeanz

+ posts

Follow me on Parler and Truth Social @AdamCarter

Previous articleOp-Ed: Farewell My Brother … Until We Meet Again
Next articleStacey Abrams Exemplifies The Worst of Leftist Ideology