A group called Wisconsin Spotlight did the hard work of gathering hundreds of pages of documents related to the 2020 election. What they found is incredible.
There must be a political thriller written years ago which describes these events. You can say “you can’t make this stuff up” and you would be right. However, these researchers with Wisconsin Spotlight who refuse to allow the fraud of 2020 to go quietly into history have continued to dredge up the story behind the story. It is a shocking story.
Paid off election judges, or terms like “shadow government in the urban core”, allude to some of the issues. While the information which surfaced in early March is specific to Wisconsin, it is very likely this was a model imitated in other battleground states.
What these researchers have found may well implicate Mark Zuckerberg. They suggest he used some $350 million dollars funneled through several non-profit corporations dressed up as being all about voter access. Instead, by freedom of Information searches, they are assembling the pieces of a narrative that reveals unprecedented corruption which may even extend to China.
Slithering, Slimy Infiltration to Steal the Election
In brief, local government officials appear to have taken money from these non-profits in exchange for allowing them unprecedented access to the election including managing operations and unmonitored access to absentee ballots. Mind you, this is just the beginning of the story.
This version has the five largest cities in Wisconsin as the political targets. They were called the WI-5, and Green Bay was one of them. In this city, Zuckerberg’s apparatus had given some $1.6 million in “grants” meant to help the city with the election. Through September 2020, there were emails form a Brown County clear named Sandy Juno. She complained that she was increasingly being pushed out of the day to day operations of the elections office at the direction of Green Bay’s mayor. Instead of the people in the election office, members of the mayor’s staff along with elements of these Zuckerberg-funded groups were taking charge.
In particular, Wisconsin Spotlight named a former Democrat operative, Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, who was given four of five keys needed to access rooms where absentee ballots were stored prior to election day. As the story goes, he was given unmonitored access (though an email specified otherwise) in order to “cure” absentee ballots. It is believed he had unmonitored access to some 13,000 absentee ballots.
Phillip Kline of the Amistad Project had noted that geofencing was used to get out the vote for democrats but not than republicans. Moreover, average election funding spent $47 per urban democrat vote, and $4 per rural republican vote.
Among Zuckerberg’s phony non-profits, one is the National Vote at Home Institute. They describe themselves on the home page as: National Vote at Home Institute worked diligently to present best practices and innovative solutions to aid states in a successful vote by mail.
“National Vote at Home Institute worked diligently to present best practices and innovative solutions to aid states in a successful vote by mail expansion for both voters and administrators. Here you will find our assessment of how 2020 went and what we can do in 2021 to make elections even better.”
Really? If they mean exclusive partisan access to secure facilities containing absentee ballots, then that might be an example of “even better”.
The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) is another organization said to be funded by Zuckerberg. CTCL played hardball with its grants. They stipulated to grant recipients that if they failed to meet CTCL’s objectives, the recipient had to return the money.
Did those objectives include taking control of government functions? Research will hopefully provide clarification on this point. What is known is that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein and others took ever greater control of the election office. The fact that this process of taking over unfolded during two months would suggest it was pre-planned and dove-tailed with the demands that the election office meet their goals.
The other part of this story is the role of the Green Bay, Wisconsin mayor in aiding and abetting private take over of the election office. It would appear to be highly irregular and unprecedented. There is an expectation that government operations are non-partisan. Bringing in clearly partisan private actors looks bad. Was the mayor bribed? Will we ever know? Does anybody even care?
The next installment will take a closer look at these and related issues. We certainly welcome comments on this development too.