Claims of Election Fraud Coverup Intensify Due to Raffensperger Roadblock

brad raffensperger

While many Americans have moved on from the 2020 election and accepted Joe Biden as President of the United States, many more are still working through legal channels to uncover evidence of election fraud.

Election integrity advocate Garland Favorito and his organization Voter GA are leading the charge in Georgia, a state that’s been plagued by election fraud claims since the day after the election.

Recently, a judge ruled in favor of a suit filed by Favorito and his team back in December 2020. The ruling allows Fulton County’s ballots to be conditionally unsealed and forenscially audited — a big step in the effort to prove that fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election.

But somebody — <cough> Brad Raffensperger <cough> — is now trying to stop this from happening, which has caused Favorito to accuse him of being part of an election fraud “coverup.” Sophie Mann reports:

In December 2020, Favorito’s organization Voter GA filed a suit against the then-chairperson of the Fulton County Board of Elections based on a sudden, implausible spike of 20,000 votes in favor of Joe Biden on election night, along with sworn testimony from hand count auditors who say they saw batches of counterfeit ballots during the county’s post-election hand recount. The witnesses cite uncreased ballots, different paper stock, and ballots marked with toner instead of writing implements as reasons for their suspicions.

Based on the affidavits and other evidence, the judge in the case found probable cause to conditionally unseal the county’s ballots for a forensic audit. Voter GA was given until March 25 to submit a plan to the judge detailing what the audit would look like — which experts they were going to use, where the audit would take place, etc.

Last week, [Georgia Secretary of State Brad] Raffensperger, who is not a party to the suit, filed an amicus brief in an attempt to block the effort to unseal and examine the ballots.

Just the News

Now here’s where it gets really weird.

Raffensperger is trying to play both sides by claiming he’s not opposed to a ballot audit, but he is opposed to an audit of the phsyical ballots.

Basically, he only wants Favorito and his team to have access to the ballot images… just not the physical ballots themselves.

Which makes sense in light of the allegations. If Voter GA is only given access to ballot images, it will be much more difficult to determine the authenticity of the ballots and whether or not they are counterfeit.

Now think about this. Imagine trying to determine if a dollar bill is counterfeit by only looking at an image. It would be nearly impossible, right? Yet this is what Raffensperger is pushing for.

Raffensperger is attempting to justify his legal roadblock by citing Georgia’s new election security law, which was just passed on March 25, 2021. He claims this law allows “public disclosure of ballot images, but not ballots.”

Don’t you find it just a little bit odd that a bill signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp on March 25, 2021 could be applied retroactively to prevent the unsealing of the physical ballots cast on November 3, 2020? I do.

Raffensperger’s Amicus Brief reads in part:

Petitioners have not articulated a legal justification for why they are entitled to conduct their own independent tabulation of ballots separate and apart from the legal tabulation conducted by authorized elections officials as required by law.

The Secretary respectfully requests that the Court permit Petitioners to inspect ballot images only, and deny Petitioners’ request to inspect and scan ballots. This result is consistent with Georgia law, and appropriately balances Petitioners’ interests in inspecting ballot images with the State’s and the public’s interest in maintaining the security and integrity of confidential ballots.

The brief goes on to say that election fraud claims are “baseless” and “misinformation,” saying that no fraud happened because election results were certified and Biden is now president. It further claims that “any legal challenges to the results of the 2020 general election are also moot.”

Perhaps most shocking of all, the brief claims that the judge’s ruling to unseal the physical ballots would permit an “unlawful fishing expedition.” In essence, they’re claiming the judge’s ruling is unlawful. (I don’t think the judge will agree.)

Despite the latest legal challenge, Favorito is not backing down.

“There’s nothing in that [election security] bill that would prevent us from looking at ballots,” he said. “That’s just complete hogwash. If [Raffensperger is] trying to intimidate us, it’s not going to work. If the court says we can inspect the ballots, we’re going to inspect them.”

At this point, I have to agree with Favorito. It appears that Raffensperger is simply trying to coverup the election fraud and cover his own ass.