Wisconsin Committee on Campaigns and Elections Demands Answers from Wisconsin Elections Commission on Who Had Access to Voter Rolls and Who Had Ability to Manipulate Them

by Jim Hoft


The Wisconsin State Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections has oversight authority over the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), an executive branch agency. Last week the State Committee on Campaigns and Elections sent Meagan Wolfe, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Elections Commission a list of demands concerning the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin.

The Committee, led by State Rep. Janel Brandtjen is demanding information from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on who had access to the voter rolls in 2020 and who had the ability to manipulate the voter roles.

Formal Complaint Filed Against Green Bay Mayor for Turning 2020 Elections Over to Far Left Operative, Including Secret Access to Internet and Ballot Warehouse

 As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich gave the keys to the arena where ballots were stored before the the 2020 election to far left radical and former Facebook employee Michael Spitzer Rubenstein. We then reported that emails revealed that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state lead for the National … Continue reading

The Wisconsin State Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections has oversight authority over the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), an executive branch agency. Last week the State Committee on Campains and Elections sent Meagan Wolfe, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Elections Commission a list of demands concerning the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin.

The Committee, led by State Rep. Janel Brandtjen is demanding information from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on who had access to the voter rolls in 2020 and who had the ability to manipulate the voter roles.

We already know that a number of Wisconsin mayors turned over access to far left operatives, including secret access to the internet and ballot warehouse.

This is a huge development.

From the formal document request

The Gretchen Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Case About to be Tossed?

by Julie Kelly


At this point, perhaps the Justice Department should pray that the judge rules in favor of the defense and dismisses the case before the FBI is further embarrassed—and exposed.

The U.S. Department of Justice received an unwelcome Christmas gift from defense attorneys representing five men charged with conspiring to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020: a motion to dismiss the case.

The Christmas Day filing is the latest blow to the government’s scandal-ridden prosecution; defense counsel is building a convincing argument that the FBI used undercover agents and informants to entrap their clients in a wide-ranging scheme that resulted in bad press for Donald Trump as early voting was underway in the key swing state last year. What began as random social media chatter to oppose lock down policies quickly morphed into a dangerous plan to abduct Whitmer as soon as the FBI took over.

A Michigan judge delayed the trial, now set for March 8, so defense attorneys could investigate the misconduct of FBI special agents handling at least a dozen government informants involved in the caper.

As I reported last week, the lead prosecutor recently informed the judge that three of the FBI’s top agents involved in the case will not take the stand as government witnesses. Richard Trask, the FBI special agent who signed the initial criminal complaint against six men facing federal charges—one man pleaded guilty and is cooperating with authorities—was removed from the case and fired by the FBI after he physically assaulted his wife last summer in a drunken rage following a swingers party at a hotel near their home.

And it isn’t just FBI agents causing headaches for the government. Stephen Robeson, a convicted felon and longtime FBI informant who planned several kidnapping-related outings including a militia conference in Ohio, recently pleaded guilty to illegally purchasing and possessing a sniper rifle in 2020. The government offered Robeson a sweetheart deal—time served on a felony charge with a potential 10-year prison term, two years probation, and $100 fine—and he will be sentenced in February, a month before the Whitmer trial is scheduled to begin.

The Justice Department won’t confirm whether Robeson will testify; given his central role in the plot and criminal history, including statutory rape, and the misconduct of his FBI handlers, it’s hard to see how Robeson’s testimony would help the government’s case.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, insist the suggestion that the FBI was responsible for the Whitmer kidnapping plot is a factless fantasy peddled by the same people who claim January 6 was an inside job. “The conspiracy theory that the FBI instigated the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol to entrap otherwise law-abiding citizens has been actively promoted by certain media outlets,” the government sneered in a recent motion, referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

And therein lies the government’s biggest headache of all. If a trial showcases all the ways in which the FBI orchestrated the Whitmer kidnapping plan from start to finish—and the defense features the lowlife agents and informants who made it possible—the public will demand a similar reckoning about the FBI’s role in January 6.

At this point, perhaps the Justice Department should pray that the judge rules in favor of the defense and dismisses the case before the FBI is further embarrassed—and exposed.

The agents who managed the day-to-day activity of the case’s lead informant also will not testify. FBI agent Jayson Chambers ran a security consulting business on the side; an anonymous Twitter account claiming to represent his firm, Exeintel, dropped hints of pending arrests in the Whitmer case, calling into question his motives as a lead investigator. His partner, FBI agent Henrik Impola, has been accused of committing perjury in a separate case.

“The government does not plan to call Impola, Chambers, or Trask as witnesses,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Birge notified the court on December 17. “[The] government requests the Court exclude evidence relating to Exeintel, the unfounded allegations against SA Impola, and Richard Trask’s domestic assault charges or alleged social media posts.”

Now the judge will consider defense counsel’s latest motion to drop the kidnapping conspiracy charges against Adam Fox, Barry Croft, Kaleb Franks, Dan Harris, and Brandon Caserta; in the April 2021 superseding indictment, which defense attorneys cite in the motion, the Justice Department described the defendants as domestic terrorists who attempted “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

But the real conspiracy—as court documents, testimony, and communications between FBI handlers and their informants show—was concocted by federal operatives working inside and outside the FBI Detroit field office.

“In this Case, the undisputed evidence, as demonstrated in forty-four pages of statements already submitted to the Court, establishes that government agents and informants concocted, hatched, and pushed this ‘kidnapping plan’ from the beginning, doing so against defendants who explicitly repudiated the plan,” the five defense attorneys wrote in the December 25 motion. “When the government was faced with evidence showing that the defendants had no interest in a kidnapping plot, it refused to accept failure and continued to push its plan.”

The FBI funded and organized two “militia” conferences in the summer of 2020 to lure would-be kidnappers; handled all expenses so indigent defendants could attend surveillance and training excursions, which were photographed by the government to use as evidence; and paid cash to numerous informants, including at least $50,000 to the lead informant, known as “Big Dan” to the unwitting suspects.

A footnote in the 20-page filing explained how “Big Dan” and other informants acted as the monetary pass-through between the FBI and the Whitmer defendants. “The government was not going to be deterred by the fact that the defendants did not have the money to travel throughout the Midwest in order to play along with the CHSs and undercover agents. CHS Dan, while often claiming poverty, always had the resources to drive, feed, and house others whom he hoped to pull into the government plan. Another CHS convinced many that he would finance operations through a 501(c)(3) charity and would even provide debit cards to others, drawing on his accounts. So while the defendants had no interest in profit . . . the government’s exploitation of its virtually unlimited resources, poured into its investigation, further underscores entrapment as a matter of law.” This included informants’ picking up the tab for food, lodging, and gas among other expenses.







EXCLUSIVE SMOKING GUN: Lawsuit Reveals Fulton County 2020 Absentee Ballot Results Were Physically Impossible and Files Were Modified

by Joe Hoft


The following report summarizes an analysis of 2020 Election ballots scanned in Fulton County.   This exclusive report uncovered thousands of questionable ballots. 

There are numerous questions related to what happened in the State Farm Arena in Fulton County Georgia during the 2020 Election.  The Arena was used as the Fulton County ballot processing center and is where reportedly all 148,318 absentee ballots were scanned.

Ballots processed in the Arena were expected to be authenticated first.  Voters were to be identified on voter logs and then signature verification was to take place.  The ballots were then to be separated from their envelopes and arranged in batches of approximately 100.  Each batch was then scanned using one of the five Cannon DR-G2140 high-speed machines [as can be observed in video from the Arena on Election night.]  The image of each ballot was simultaneously created and saved.

As a result of a previous lawsuit, Fulton County produced scanned absentee ballot image files which were then made public and have been under review by various individuals and groups.

One individual examining the data (RonC) identified something he could not explain.  The image files have timestamps that are recorded as the ballots are being scanned.  Those timestamps reveal that the image files were created faster than the physical capacity of the scanners used in the process.  In many cases, several times faster.

The manual for the Cannon DR-G2140 lists the specifications on page 23:

The manual for the Cannon DR-G2140 lists the specifications on page 23:

The manual shows the machine has a maximum capability of scanning up to 140 document sheets per minute, or roughly 2.3 pages per second.  This rate is based on scanning standard 8 ½ X 11-inch paper.  The absentee ballots are more than one and a half times this length at 18 inches long.

Using the State Farm Arena surveillance video, a group of professionals analyzing the data measured the actual realized scan times which averaged approximately 80 seconds per batch (under perfect conditions with no paper jams or complications).  Which equates to approximately 1.25 ballots per second.

However, the image timestamps show something different.  Below is a spreadsheet of sample data that has the timestamp of each ballot image as it was created.  This information came from Fulton County and was produced in the court case above.

Below is image data of actual ballots scanned by unit 5162 on 11-05-2020.

The timestamps in the red boxes above show 8 ballots scanned in the same second, followed by 6 ballots in the very next second.  Fourteen ballots in 2 seconds!?!?

This shows that the ballot images were created at a speed that is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

These results are not possible.

The same scenario is replete throughout the image files and affects thousands of ballots.  These results certainly aren’t expected or “normal”.

The group of professionals talked to several experts about these anomalies.  Given the specifics, such as the files being saved on Ethernet-connected, high-performance network drives, and other specific technical parameters of the arrangement, there remains no clear and justifiable cause for these timestamps.  Even if one considers lag-time, buffering, or some type of computer processor or network-caused “ebb and flow”, it does not explain the impossible scan times, even when averaging all images in each batch.

There’s more.  If we expand the same dataset to include the modified file timestamps, we reveal additional problems:

The only instance in which a ballot image file should be modified is if it has gone through the adjudication process.  Adjudication is when the machine cannot determine the voter’s selections for various reasons and the ballot is supposed to be sent to a bi-partisan team who looks at the markings and attempts to interpret the voter’s intent. The team votes and if they agree, the original image is supplemented to reflect the decision.

The modified timestamps shown above reveal that all of the files were modified.

Again, the ballot images should not be modified unless processed for adjudication. Adjudication should only be used only in rare circumstances.  [We’re not sure of the official percent but we believe adjudication should only occur in less than 2% of all ballots processed.] Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for all of these ballots being adjudicated. Maybe this was caused by a technicality only affecting these ballots?  But the images appear to have been all modified at the same time, and within only one hour of scanning.

If we zoom out to the 30,000-foot level and look at all batches from the same scanner as shown below, we see a much larger problem.  First, all of the batches have been modified as shown on the far right. The scan times for each batch are in yellow and the numbers shown in red are the amount of time (hours) between when the batch was scanned and when the batch was modified.

For example, batch 001 was finished being scanned at 1:51 pm on 10/22.  That same batch was modified 192 hours later at 1:38 pm on 10/30.

The batch was scanned and then modified 8 DAYS LATER.

On scanner 5150, a total of 44 batches were modified between 3 to 8 days after being scanned. Not only is such a large window of time used to process ballots inexplicable, but it is also unacceptable. Unfortunately, these findings show extreme variations in the process, are widespread, and cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Important is the last 4 batches shown on the page had 0 hours between the scan time and modification time.  In fact, the last 4 batches scanned were modified before the previous 44 batches. This removes the possibility of some type of consistent procedure or forced process causing the modification of all batches on the same date.

Remember, the findings above only show the anomalies associated with one of the five machines used to scan absentee ballots, a process that continued until November 5th(More to come soon on the significance of the time between scanning and file modification time.)

Attempting to seek understanding and answers for his findings, RonC went to the logical government entity charged with such matters- the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (BRE).

RonC summarized his findings in an email that detailed the scan speed and image file modification issues. The BRE then sought answers from the County Elections Director, Rick Barron. The email below shows Mr. Barron’s response to the board:

There are 4 basic takeaways from Mr. Barron’s email.

First, it’s obvious that Mr. Barron feels the same about the impossible scanning speed and went so far as to describe RonC’s finding as “bizarre”.  The problem is this was not simply a “claim” as characterized by Mr. Barron, rather a factual observation of Fulton County’s data.

Secondly, Mr. Barron directly states:  “You can’t modify ballot images that aren’t adjudicated.”  Again, he affirms our understanding and expectations.

Third, he states that the equipment is proprietary, and the security manuals are not available. In his defense, Mr. Barron was probably referencing the election system as a whole or in a general connotation; however, the scanners used were Cannon consumer-off-the-shelf machines that can be purchased through numerous retailers.

Finally, we did follow Mr. Barron’s advice to observe the scanners in operation by watching the State Farm Arena surveillance video.  He was correct, the scanners are slow.  In fact, they are so slow that the ballot images produced by the scanner are created faster than the machine can scan the ballots, and that truly is “bizarre”.

There is more to this story.

Kevin Moncla


“RonC” contributed to this report













Meet Ray Epps, Part 2: Damning New Details Emerge Exposing Massive 'Web Of Unindicted' Operators at the Heart of January 6

by Revolver News


Six weeks ago, Revolver News published a blockbuster investigative report on Ray Epps — a man who, more than any other individual, appears to be the key unlocking the question of active federal involvement in the so-called “Capitol Siege” of January 6th.

Out of all of the thousands of January 6’s protesters, and the thousands of hours of publicly available footage from that fateful day, Ray Epps has turned out to be perhaps the only person nailed dead to rights confessing on camera to plotting a pre-planned attack on the Capitol. On both January 5 and January 6, Epps announced multiple times, at multiple locations, his upcoming plot to breach the US Capitol. He then spent hours attempting to recruit hundreds of others to join him. On top of it all, Epps was seen leading key people and managing key aspects of the initial breach of the Capitol grounds himself.

It would be one thing if Epps’s repeated calls on January 5 to “go into the Capitol” had simply amounted to bluster. But Epps followed through on his stated mission to shepherd others inside. In clips 4-6 of the above compilation, we see Epps actively orchestrate elements of the very first breach of the Capitol barricades at 12:50 p.m, while Trump still had 20 minutes left in his rally speech.

It is noteworthy that this Ray Epps breach occurs just one minute after Capitol Police began responding to reports of two “pipe bombs” located at DNC and GOP headquarters, respectively. Rather conveniently, the already-handicapped Capitol Police thus had still-fewer resources with which to respond to the barricade breach in question.

While the “pipe bombs” turned out to be a dud, the Ray Epps breach proved fateful. Today, the official stories told by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the US Justice Department all depict the apparent Ray Epps-orchestrated 12:50 p.m. initial breach of metal barricades as the “Big Bang” event of January 6.

In large part, this description is hardly an exaggeration. Indeed, it was the 12:50 p.m. breach of the Capitol grounds, in conjunction with a handful of suspicious individuals ripping down fencing and signage, that set in motion the conditions allowing for 1/6 to turn from a rally into a riot. 

In this report, we will blow open this network of still-unindicted key operators who appear to have been at work either with or around Ray Epps during the initial Capitol grounds breach. You, dear reader, will be scandalized — though perhaps unsurprised — to learn that none of the actors covered in this report have received attention in the mainstream press, despite their active and indispensable roles in the events of 1/6.

As we explained in detail in our previous report, the FBI originally put Ray Epps’s face on its Capitol Violence “Most Wanted List” on January 8, 2021, just two days after 1/6. They offered a cash reward for information leading to his arrest. In fact, rank-and-file FBI agents initially deemed Epps’s role as an apparent riot organizer so important that they named him Suspect #16—one of the first 20 high-profile FBI targets in a database now packed with more than 500 suspects.

Then, six months later on June 30, 2021, both Revolver News and The New York Times published inconvenient stories that encouraged a more aggressive interrogation of the “Ray Epps third rail,” leading reasonable people to wonder why this publicly identified man on the Most Wanted List still had no charges filed against him.

The FBI responded to these important media stories the very next day. But their response was to quietly purge all online Ray Epps files from their website, then switch to a posture of “What? Who? Ray Epps? Never heard of him.”

Agents of the FBI Field Office in Phoenix (where Epps lives) have gone so far as to explicitly deny knowledge that Ray Epps even exists. Instead of pursuing Epps, FBI agents have instead pursued journalists who had the temerity to ask Epps in person if he was a government operative. “I understand that, but I can’t say anything,” is all Epps would tell them.

Here’s a quick visual synopsis of this timeline:

Then, six months later on June 30, 2021, both Revolver News and The New York Times published inconvenient stories that encouraged a more aggressive interrogation of the “Ray Epps third rail,” leading reasonable people to wonder why this publicly identified man on the Most Wanted List still had no charges filed against him.

The FBI responded to these important media stories the very next day. But their response was to quietly purge all online Ray Epps files from their website, then switch to a posture of “What? Who? Ray Epps? Never heard of him.”

Agents of the FBI Field Office in Phoenix (where Epps lives) have gone so far as to explicitly deny knowledge that Ray Epps even exists. Instead of pursuing Epps, FBI agents have instead pursued journalists who had the temerity to ask Epps in person if he was a government operative. “I understand that, but I can’t say anything,” is all Epps would tell them.

Here’s a quick visual synopsis of this timeline:

The sham Congressional January 6 Commission seems to be going along with the charade of Ray Epps denialism. For all of its recent gesticulations about Mark Meadows’s benign text messages, the Commission has yet to express even a basic interest in Ray Epps or his communications leading up to and on January 6.

But the specter of Ray Epps, and the ominous questions his immunity raises, loom too large to be memory-holed by poorly coordinated efforts of government denial. In light of the above, it is both amusing and symbolically appropriate that despite the FBI’s attempt to purge Epps’s face from its “Wanted” database (and public denials of his existence from authorized agents), the FBI DC Field Office still features Ray Epps as a “Wanted” man in its current pinned Twitter image (look closely and you’ll find it).

If Epps turns out to have been some kind of government operative, which at present is the only clean and simple explanation for his immunity, it is game over for the official “MAGA insurrection” narrative of 1/6. Epps was the day’s loudest riot recruiter, and its apparent leader of the very first breach of Capitol grounds. If Ray Epps is a Fed, the “Insurrection” becomes the “Fedsurrection” in one fell swoop.

So if Ray Epps was instructed by the government to play his part in various recruiting, breaching and crowd control efforts that day, we would expect many other informants to be set up around him.

To test this hypothesis, Revolver spent the past six weeks comprehensively mapping Ray Epps’s network of interactions on January 6, and profiling the key people around him who complemented his efforts. We did a deep dive into other key figures involved in the initial breach of the Capitol grounds, as well as figures who played an instrumental role in fence removal and crowd control. In short, we investigated key players whose early actions on 1/6 turned the rally into a riot.

The bad news for Fedsurrection Deniers is the results are in, and they look even worse for the FBI than Revolver’s already low expectations. For brevity, we profile five of the most egregious cases in this report, and tell the story of how they crossed paths and interacted with, and in some cases coordinated with Ray Epps to make 1/6 possible. Some of these cases are so wild as to constitute Epps-sized scandals unto themselves.