Dear reader, we know there is no point in sharing this information since the media and Big Tech have said there's little, if any, election fraud happening around the country.
I mean, there was this the other night, but I'm sure the 234 pages of affidavits from ONE MICHIGAN COUNTY that Kayleigh McEnany held up on the news was just a prop:
It's not like you can view the entire document for yourself online. That would be absolutely ridiculous.
Here are a few of the totally-not-real statements that come with the criminal charge of perjury should they be lies:
- From Articia Bomer: "At approximately 4:50am I witnessed a man spraying a chemical on a ballot counting machine. He then placed twenty-seven ballots into the machine and I noticed tape on the top of the ballot where a ballot number would normally be. Throughout the night I witnessed him insert these same 27 ballots at least five times."
- From Whitney Meyers: "On the street in front of the Department I witnessed workers with ‘Detroit Elections' aprons on collecting ballots from cars. I witnessed multiple drivers in cars drop off multiple ballots, including more ballots than people in the car."
- From Jacqueline Zaplitny: "I was told to observe the computers that were identifying ballots that showed ‘error.' I was told [to] view the people that were ‘determining the intent of the voter.' There were multiple ballots that were ‘corrected' on ballots that should have been overvoted and not counted."
Here are other brief summaries of some of the statements.
There was also a particularly important (but again, totally not real) affidavit from Michigan's former Assistant Attorney General Zachary Larsen.
Here's the full text of this single affidavit.
Remember, THIS IS TOTALLY NOT REAL GUYS!!! GO WATCH A VIDEO OF BIDEN'S DOGS! SO CUTE!
"An attorney and former Michigan Assistant Attorney General was a certified poll challenger at the TCF Center [in Detroit].
As Mr. Larsen watched the process, he was concerned that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was an eligible voter in the poll book because of information he had received from other poll challengers. Mr. Larsen reviewed the running list of scanned in ballots in the computer system, where it appeared that the voter had already been counted as having voted. An official operating the computer then appeared to assign this ballot to a different voter as he observed a completely different name that was added to the list of voters at the bottom of a running tab of processed ballots on the right side of the screen.
Mr. Larsen was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers indicated that a ballot was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll book of the supplemental poll book. From his observation of the computer screen, the voters were not in the official poll book. Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the voters whose ballots he personally observed being scanned.
Because of Mr. Larsen's concern, he stepped behind the table and walked over to a spot behind where the first official was conducting her work. Understanding health concerns due to COVID-19, he attempted to stand as far away from this official as he reasonably could while also being able to visually observe the names on the supplemental poll book and on the envelopes.
As soon as Mr. Larsen moved to a location where he could observe the process by which the first official at this table was confirming the eligibility of the voters to vote, the first official immediately stopped working and glared at him. He stood still until she began to loudly and aggressively tell him that he could not stand where he was standing. She indicated that he needed to remain in front of the computer screen where he could not see what the worker was doing. Both officials then began to tell Mr. Larsen that because of COVID, he needed to be six feet away from the table. He responded that he could not see and read the supplemental poll book from six feet away, and that he was attempting to keep his distance to the extent possible.
Just minutes before at another table, a supervisor has explained that the rules allowed Mr. Larson to visually observe what he needed to see and then step back away. Likewise, on Election Day, he had been allowed to stand at equivalent distance from poll books in Lansing and East Lansing precincts without any problem. With this understanding, he remained in a position to observe the supplemental poll book. Both officials indicated that Mr. Larsen could not remain in a position that would allow him to observe their activities; the officials indicated they were going to get their supervisor.
When the supervisor arrived, she reiterated that Mr. Larsen was not allowed to stand behind the official with the supplemental poll book, and he needed to stand in front of the computer screen. Mr. Larsen told her that was not true, and that he was statutorily allowed to observe the process, including the poll book."