The Wisconsin Assembly hosted two back-to-back hearings on Dec. 8, showing aggressive coordination between Democrat operatives and city and state election officials in the months running up to the Nov. 2020 election. Voter rolls and election abuse were the expressed subjects of the hearings. However, the real story here is the evidence showing the alleged influence of Democrat groups like the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) in what has been called the Wisconsin 5 (WI5)—the five key cities in Wisconsin that helped Biden win his narrow margin of around 20,000 votes.
Rep. Brandtjen, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, led the hearing to discuss issues associated with the ongoing 2020 election fraud investigation by former Justice Michael Gableman and evidence from other sources like the Wisconsin Elections Administration Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) Report.
The Dec. 8 hearing revealed a series of emails obtained through open records requests showing various organizations, including Mark Zuckerberg’s well-funded CTCL, were, for all intents and purposes, allegedly allowed to hijack many of the mechanisms used for get-out-the-vote (GOTV) initiatives in the WI5. The coordination targeting Democrat voters was made possible because of nearly $9 million in Zuckerberg funding allegedly to help make things safer for voters because of the pandemic.
"They made an agreement to swap cash for getting out the vote."
$8.8 million "swap" for turning out the vote in 5 Democrat heavy Wisconsin cities from Mark Zuckerberg's CTCL pic.twitter.com/ya9KmjL5nc
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) December 8, 2021
The CTCL contract in response to the Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020 can be viewed here. The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan requested funds for four areas of need, as seen in the screenshot below. The final monies received were closer to $9 million for the state:
Representative Janel Brandtjen Opens With Emails
Rep. Brandtjen’s presented in her opening remarks the series of emails which she described as a “disturbing process” of discussions about “how they (CTCL and other Democrat organizations) can build a template for a computer program.” The organizations worked closely with the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) staff to track almost every facet of election and voter data in order to get the vote out in heavily Democrat areas of the cities. While such activity may be questionable on its own, it was the unequal application of the funds and targeting that hurt and disenfranchised voters in Wisconsin. Not all areas in the state were afforded the same level of support before and during the election. Additionally, Brandtjen admonished that, in the process of building the database, those participating were using “government time and resources for a database for CTCL” to potentially help only a certain class of voters.
A New Yorker and former Obama campaign guru, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein with National Vote At Home, was evidently coordinating a website build called Quickbase in coordination with election commission officials and government employees for the CTCL to track ballots, the placement of dropboxes, and other GOTV mechanisms that were somewhat unique to the 2020 election—using the pandemic as a pretense.
Brandtjen said there were allegedly many more points of contact like zoom calls and phone calls from not only Spitzer-Rubenstein but also other political consultants and organizations who were “inserting themselves” into the 2020 election. There are emails indicating he and others worked with the cities of Madison, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Kenosha, Racine, Eau Claire, and Wauwatosa—and were interested in “other jurisdictions, as well.” Claire Woodall-Vogg, the Executive Director for Milwaukee’s election commission, apparently recommends Vote At Home to other election commissions.
One of the more stunning emails actually shows Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein asking if Woodall-Vogg knows if “WisVote has an API or anything similar so that it can connect with other software apps? That would be the holy grail (but I’m not expecting that to be easy).” The request came in the same email whose opening request explained his organization was “bringing on US Digital Response to help with the Quick Base dashboard project—also a CTCL technical assistance partner.”
While Woodall-Vogg does not seem to give him direct access to the database, she says she will go into the database “every night” and run the report sending the information to Vote At Home staff. Thus, as Brandtjen explained, Woodall-Vogg ends up providing “a real-time system of the U.S. parcel service of when these ballots are coming in” anyway. On Oct. 19, Woodall-Vogg receives news she is no longer needed for daily reports. She receives an email from Spitzer-Rubenstein saying, “through partners, we should be able to access the voter file and pull the data from WisVote.”
There is also correspondence between Woodall-Vogg and the CTCL mentioning the Brennan Center. One of the emails speaks of plans for a “roundtable conversation to [share] strategies with each other for the November election, including the possibility of delayed results.”
Special Counsel Gableman’s probe discusses the emails and the many ways Zuckerberg’s funding—with the help of CTCL and other organizations—was allegedly used to aggressively target Democrat voters during the election on multiple fronts with the private funding of get-out-the-vote activities. Those activities include bussing voters, paying for dropboxes in strategic Democrat areas, and other targeted activities amounting to a “swap of 8.8 million dollars in cash” to get out the vote.
Because of the real-time coordination with voter databases, there were, according to Brandtjen, real opportunities for ballot harvesting. She spoke of an app that was given to certain parties that tracked “where ballots were being delivered.” That type of information would be enormously expensive for the average person to obtain, she explained. However, National Vote at Home and CTCL made it easy and inexpensive to quickly obtain “real-time U.S. Postal tracking” of absentee ballots.
“So the information from the map of Milwaukee—if you wanted that real-time system every day the updated list of absentee ballots, it would still be two to three days behind,” said Brandtjen. “But this app allows them to have a real-time U.S. postal tracking service every day and if you were to buy that service would probably cost you about $10,000 a day.”
The American Voters Alliance Report
The American Voters Alliance published a damning and extensive report on the subject of “The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding in the Federal and State Electoral Processes.” In painstaking detail, the report lays out how private/public funding partnerships under cover of the pandemic allegedly put the “government’s thumb” on the scale in key swing states to favor a party in the election. The Executive Summary excerpt below confirms the grant-related coordination in Wisconsin:
“Funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other high-tech interests, activist organizations created a two-tiered election system that treated voters differently depending on whether they lived in Democrat or Republican strongholds. Private monies dictated city and county election management contrary to both federal law and state election plans endorsed and developed by state legislatures with authority granted by the United States Constitution.”
“Moreover, executive officials in swing states facilitated, through unique and novel contracts, the sharing of private and sensitive information about citizens within those states with private interests, some whom actively promote leftist candidates and agendas. This data sharing allowed direct access to data of unique political value to leftist causes, and created new vulnerabilities for digital manipulation of state electronic poll books and counting systems and machines.”
“This public-private partnership in these swing states effectively placed government’s thumb on the scale to help these private interests achieve their objectives and to benefit the candidates of one political party.
“Soon after, we witnessed the rumblings of a previously sleepy 501(c)(3) organization entitled the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million.
“CTCL began sending agents into states to recruit certain Democrat strongholds to prepare grants requesting monies from CTCL.”
For example, CTCL inked a $100,000 grant to the Mayor of Racine, WI in May of 2020 directing the Mayor to recruit four other cities (Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request of CTCL. This effort results in these cities submitting a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15, 2020 to CTCL and, in turn, receiving $6.3 million to implement the plan. This privatization of elections undermines the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters.”
“The provision of Zuckerberg-CTCL funds allowed these Democrat strongholds to spend roughly $47 per voter, compared to $4 to $7 per voter in traditionally Republican areas of the state.”
The ElectionFraud20.org website shows how the grant money was distributed to 6 Wisconsin cities in his graph below. Their report on Wisconsin is informative and corroborates much of what was presented in the Dec. 8 hearing. The graph below shows Milwaukee received a large share of the funds. As seen in the emails, the election commissioner from that city was a key player in the alleged cash for votes scheme:
Data Presented In the Hearing
With mail-in and absentee ballots being at an all-time high for the 2020 election, it would have been very easy to use phantom voters and dead voters to pad the votes. Real-time access to data combined with the many anomalies found in the voter rolls and with Wisconsin’s voter registration made the system vulnerable to the potential of hiding nefarious activity.
Jeff O’Donnell, ALoneRaccoon on Telegram and whose website is MagaRaccoon.com, presented evidence of major anomalies in the voter registration data and voter rolls. A screen capture from his Rumble video shows just a small snippet of his findings:
Media personality Debbie Georgatos posted an expanded version of O’Donnell’s results with editorial comments explaining the implications in red. She took the data from the Liberty Overwatch Telegram channel, which provides a wealth of information on election integrity activity. O’Donnell also presented evidence that 157,000 voters allegedly have the same registration number, making it very difficult to “make a comparison on voter information.”
The hearing also revealed that the state does not remove deceased voters from its rolls but, rather, merely marks them as inactive. 64K individuals were switched to inactive right after the election. O’Donnell stated that “highly suspicious issues were found and need to be investigated further.”
“The Wisconsin election Commission site lists the number of Wisconsin citizens registered at the time of the 2020 election as a little over 4.5 million.
Of those in the voter file, a little over 3.5 million are listed as active voters, and that means that approximately 60% of Wisconsin citizens are registered as active voters in the 2020 election according to the voter file. Slightly over 1.9 million Wisconsin citizens voted absentee. Slightly over 1.3 million voted at the polls—totaling over 3.3 million votes. That calculates to a turnout of 72.9%, which is also the number that has been published.
I find it interesting that if you just do the percent of active voters who cast a vote, that’s actually 93.7% of all active voters did cast a vote in the 2020 general election.”
When voter rolls are padded, it allows for a change in the denominator. Dr. Frank explains the concept using his Wisconsin data:
“So I think your official number of that you reported for your state was something close to the low 70s was the turnout. The official number, it’s 90%. So, in other words, 90% of your active voters voted. If [you] say that to people who have been in the business for a while—they will say, wait a minute, that sounds suspicious! 90% of our people didn’t turn out. So one big advantage of inflating the database is it makes the turnout look lower! It is a very simple way to do that because people will believe 70% turn out! Will people believe in 90% turn out? Maybe not. So, it disguises [an improbable] high turnout.”
Dr. Frank’s presentation later in the hearing showed wild and seemingly coordinated state-wide inflation of the rolls before and during the election and then the same kind of apparent coordination in massive purges of the rolls after the elections. Frank mentioned Mike Lindell’s lawsuit as a source for evidence of algorithmic manipulation in the 2020 election. Notably, other swing states also showed similar activity with the purging of their voter rolls immediately after the election. Dr. Frank explains:
“The point is this; you notice that there is a fluctuation before the election the rolls increase and then afterward there’s a purging. And then before the election, they increase and then are purged after. It’s in all the counties! So here I’m showing you all 69 counties and you notice you got some big counties and small counties—there’s a pattern. Now, some of that’s normal if you talk to the clerks—and I have talked to many clerks and they’ll say, hey Dr. frank, it’s normal for us after the election to remove inactive voters and for us to remove people that have moved away or people have died or things like that.”
[The difference here, however] is that all of your counties are following the same pattern. What’s really suspicious is that even the little bumps along the way in between the major corrections all track each other, so that suggests it’s an obvious conclusion that all the registration rolls are centrally controlled.
They all follow that same pattern. They all inflate before the election and deflated afterward inflate. Before and afterward! They all travel in sync, so you know that it’s not the individual counties doing the work individually because they would be moving independently. It is centrally controlled somehow and that needs to be explained.”
At about an hour and fifteen minutes into the hearing, Frank says that when he asked for a list of voters who voted in the 2020 election, clerks across the country were unable to provide him with a list. Without such a list, he explains it is impossible to verify who is being added or purged. And, he said, “it makes your voter registration system very vulnerable to manipulation.” Frank also emphasized the problem of the delayed updates by county clerks:
“Just take one county that had a five percent loss. The clerks don’t back up their database every day! So what happens is people get added into the database who do same-day registration! They vote and then they’re taken off the rolls before they’ve sent the roll to the Secretary of State or before it’s backed up. So they’ve got a bunch of people in there who voted. They have no record of who they are!”
So this simple question—this one simple question. If they can’t answer this question about the lists, it begs for an investigation. But, also, it changes that your system is very vulnerable—very vulnerable to manipulation. And, another word for that is reconciliation. They simply can’t reconcile and that because the voters are removed from the rolls before the counties even have a chance to record.”
Frank says they need to provide lists every time they add or purge voters.
It may not be that far-fetched to deduce that the alleged coordination with organizations like CTCL, who had real-time access to all manner of voter and election-related data, would strategize a win for their chosen candidate. At least, that seemed to be the consensus of the three independent presenters who attended the hearing.
We Must Change Legislation, Not Rely Upon The Courts
Erick Kaardal with the Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA), which is affiliated with the Amistad Project, was the last presenter. His organization, he said, “represents the people” in its investigation of election abuses. His organization has sued the state for records. The WVA press release and the complaint can be found here. The group attempted to overturn certification of the election in December of 2020, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the request. A thread on Kaardel’s three election lawsuits and ensuing complaints against each of the Wisconsin 5 cities can be found below:
— Attorney Erick Kaardal filed three lawsuits over the grants to five Wisconsin cities.
— Courts threw all three out.
— Kaardal then filed five complaints (one for each city) with the bipartisan Elections Commission.
— The commission hired the DeWitt law firm to review them.
— Patrick Marley (@patrickdmarley) December 10, 2021
WVA says it has evidence that there was an unholy alliance between private entities like CTCL and government officials and election commissioners, which caused election abuses. The Wisconsin Election Commission has denied any wrongdoing.
During the hearing, Kaardel reviewed the entire CTCL contract and the state’s Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, commenting on the myriad ways the funding allegedly disenfranchised voters who were not Democrats. He said there were “a dozen or so non-profit partners” who inserted themselves into the state’s elections.
One of Kaardal’s aims is to effect legislation so that private-public contracts of this nature never again grace elections in Wisconsin. He also said reliance on the courts alone is a path to failure for election integrity.
Some of what he found is explained below:
“Racine acted as a CTCL recruiting agent when it got $100,000 to recruit the other mayors. And, they ended up getting those five cities to join—the largest five cities. Mayors and their staff had virtual meetings on May 16th, 2020, June 13, 2020, and August 14, 2020. The mayors and staff are invited to the meetings, but common council members apparently were not informed of meetings, nor was the public informed of the meetings.”
The biggest issue, Kaardal explained, was the unequal distribution of grant funds. Some cities, he said, “received $20 or $25 per voter; others received .50 a voter.” CTCL was directing the funds. So “non-Wisconsin 5 cities don’t get any of the resources, don’t get any of this extra access to voting and data.” Wisconsin 5 cities got more strategically placed dropboxes, more help with filling out ballots, funds for poll workers, more information “inducing people to go to the polls and vote,” among other advantages.
“And documents show that cities weren’t allowed to reduce their budgets without approval from CTCL—effectively, nonprofits were calling the shots in the Nov. 2020 election,” added Kaardel. “This was an $8.8 million swap for turning out the vote in these cities,” he said.
Kaardal also confirmed Brandtjen’s assertions that CTCL and other out-of-state nonprofits had unparalleled “access to the ballot box” in Wisconsin with their private-public partnerships. He wants to “ensure that 2022 is not the same. The government shouldn’t run GOTV,” said Kaardal.
“I came here representing 1100 people,” continued Kaardel, “and they have a concern that this is going to happen in 2022 and their perspective is that when government officials are taking money to induce people to go to the polls. We want to make sure that election officials aren’t being financed by left-wing or right-wing organizations to get out the vote.”
Eighty-seven percent of the CTCL money went to Wisconsin-5 cities, according to Kaardal. The Wisconsin Election Commission’s efforts to have the complaints dismissed on behalf of the five cities are documented in the following memo.
*This article has been updated to reflect a chart that should have been directly attributed to the work of electionfraud20.com.