According to RealClearInvestigations senior reporter Paul Sperry, the group will use profits from processing fees to expand their operations.

BREAKING: Sources say ActBlue, the nonprofit Democrat fundraising platform under investigation for funneling money from China through straw donors, is planning to expand by using millions in reserves from processing fees to acquire companies in the “political technology space.”

BREAKING: Sources say ActBlue, the nonprofit Democrat fundraising platform under investigation for funneling money from China through straw donors, is planning to expand by using millions in reserves from processing fees to acquire companies in the "political technology space."

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 23, 2024

Many have speculated that much of Kamala Harris’s massive fundraising haul during her short presidential run came from foreign interests, particularly China, and were laundered using straw donations on ActBlue’s platform. The Republican-led House is investigating multiple discrepancies in ActBlue’s shady practices.

As Sperry noted earlier:

DEVELOPING: It appears House investigators subpoenaing Regina Wallace-Jones for credit-card security docs believe she’s working at ActBlue’s Somerville, Mass HQ, but records show she works from her $1.8 mil home in E. Palo Alto, CA. It also appears she’s canceled her X account…

DEVELOPING: It appears House investigators subpoenaing Regina Wallace-Jones for credit-card security docs believe she's working at ActBlue's Somerville, Mass HQ, but records show she works from her $1.8 mil home in E. Palo Alto, CA. It also appears she's canceled her X account…

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 23, 2024

The Harris campaign was able to accumulate well over a billion dollars in donations, mostly through small-dollar donors. But the results of the 2024 election contradict her allegedly massive popularity, further highlighting the possibility that many if not most of her donations through ActBlue were fraudulent.

A straw donation is when a previous donor through ActBlue has his or her personal information registered for new donations. This is how large sums from China or elsewhere can be illegally laundered. All that is necessary through the ActBlue portal for reporting is name, address, and occupation which are part of the public record.

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe has been reporting since last year how he and his team have asked multiple elderly donors about donations made in their names without their consent or knowledge. He believes 60% of those donations came from China.

ActBlue’s CEO, a BLM activist who has worked with Barack Obama and other leftwing icons, is at the center of this scandal. According to Sperry:

NEW: Records show the ActBlue CEO under subpoena to account for $400 mil in potentially fraudulent donations to Dems worked as a Facebook gatekeeper during the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. Regina Wallace-Jones is also a BLM activist who organized for Obama and supported Kamala

NEW: Records show the ActBlue CEO under subpoena to account for $400 mil in potentially fraudulent donations to Dems worked as a Facebook gatekeeper during the Hunter Biden laptop censorship. Regina Wallace-Jones is also a BLM activist who organized for Obama and supported Kamala

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) November 21, 2024

Incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi should make investigating ActBlue her second priority once at the helm of the Department of Justice.

ActBlue should be ended and its executives should be investigated.

Instead, they're growing and being rewarded.

This should be @PamBondi's second focus, immediately after helping to clear the J6ers.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) November 23, 2024

Americans are tired of talking heads and the opinions of editorialists masquerading as journalists. But this should not be confused with declining interest in news or politics; viewers are simply moving to channels where they can get an unfiltered view of the candidates from personalities they trust.

If there is one clear lesson from the 2024 election cycle, it’s that candidates for public office must be prepared to engage in this new media landscape to stay competitive, especially on long-form podcasts.

The last time we had a shift this significant was 1960, when America saw the first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The Kennedy-Nixon debate underscored the power of television to shape public perception.

Remember, past is prologue. Take, for example, Donald Trump’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Already, it’s racked up about 45 million views—just on YouTube alone. Trump’s interview with Theo Von received 14 million views. For her part, Kamala Harris’ appearance on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast received 733,000 views and she received 665,000 views on the “All the Smoke” podcast.

While traditional media audiences are shrinking, these appearances have outperformed the average audiences of these podcasts oftentimes 10 to 1. Remarkably, the candidates’ episodes are even outpacing episodes featuring internationally known Hollywood celebrities.

Voters are hungry to hear from the candidates on an unfiltered, authentic platform, and podcasts are filling that need.

This shift is redefining how viable candidates will approach media going forward. Those who want to succeed in politics but are afraid, or unable, to allow the public a view into who they really are going to have a ceiling on their career if they don’t do long-form interviews.

Political campaigns are going to change in two ways due to this dynamic.

1. Candidates need to get comfortable in their own skin, open up and answer personal questions about heartache, addiction, and what makes their spouse smile. This open, honest, and unvarnished content mirrors what the public is receiving in their social media feeds already, so it makes sense that they are demanding the same transparency from their political leaders.
2. It’s going to transform the way political professionals engage with the electorate. According to GWI, a consumer research company, the “typical” internet user spends almost 2.5 hours each day using social media platforms, equating to more than one-third of their total time online. As a result, campaign resources should shift to talking to the electorate where they are spending their time, which is on their phone. That is where people are getting their news, listening to podcasts, vegging out, and forming opinions about who they will vote for.

The reason these podcasters and creators carry so much influence is because of the community and trust they build with their audience. As James Clear, author of The New York Times bestseller of “Atomic Habits,” says about changing opinions, “Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does.”

This election year, I was part of an effort that enlisted thousands of podcasters and social media personalities to encourage unregistered and low propensity voters to engage in the political process. Content creators in coordination with Vote4America delivered billions of impressions to tens of millions of voters. The posts calling on people to engage in the election significantly overperformed the average post of the creator, much like the success of the Trump and Harris podcast appearances.

We won’t know the full effect of all this content until all the votes are counted, but we can already see that 8.5% of all early votes are being cast by previously eligible first-time voters, meaning they are of age to have voted in past elections but decided not to.

The authenticity and trust of these podcasters and content creators is clearly having an effect on voter behavior.

What Jeff Bezos got wrong was his slight at podcasts as “unresearched.” The public clearly disagrees.

Americans are choosing podcasts over Bezos’ newspaper as their trusted source of news and information. Traditional media and candidates for office now must grapple with the new expectations of the electorate: unfiltered, unedited, authentic content.

The Justice Department sued Virginia after it removed the names of 6,303 aliens and Alabama after it moved 3,251 aliens to an “inactive” list.

Keep in mind that it’s a felony under several federal statutes for an alien to claim fraudulently to be a citizen so he or she may register to vote or vote in U.S. elections, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 611, 911, and 1015(f). The Justice Department has a duty to enforce these statutes, something the agency apparently has no interest in doing under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

The federal voter registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, not only asks applicants whether they are U.S. citizens, it requires them to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The form has a strict warning that if the would-be voter provides false information, he or she may “be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.”

However, the Justice Department claims that Virginia and Alabama violated the law’s 90-day preelection deadline for “systematic” list maintenance programs. This, according to the DOJ led by Attorney General Merrick Garland, prevents all “systematic” removals from a voter registration list within 90 days of an election.

What the Justice Department fails to point out is that the 90-day deadline is in the second part of a section of the National Voter Registration Act that deals only with the removal of the names of registered voters who have moved.

The first part outlines the rule for removing the names of individuals who have moved to a different residence either within the state or another state. The second part then applies the 90-day deadline for such removals.

That section of the law also says that the deadline doesn’t apply to “correction of registration records” or to removal of names of voters who have requested it or who have died or become ineligible due to a criminal conviction or mental incapacity.

The common factor in all of those exceptions is that each deals with individuals who were eligible to vote when they registered but subsequently became ineligible.

The 90-day deadline obviously doesn’t apply to an alien who wasn’t eligible to register to vote in the first place and, in fact, was committing a felony violation of federal criminal law by registering.

Critics, including the Justice Department, have claimed that those exceptions are the “exclusive” reasons that a state may remove the names of registered individuals from the voter rolls.

In 2012, in Arcia v. Detzner, a federal case out of the Southern District of Florida, Judge William Zloch said that claim would “produce an absurd result.”

Zloch ruled that would mean a state couldn’t “remove from its voting rolls minors, fictitious individuals, individuals who misrepresent their residence in the state, and non-citizens.”

The 90-day deadline, the judge decided, “simply does not apply to an improperly registered noncitizen.”

In another 2012 federal case, U.S. v. Florida, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida concluded that Congress drafted these provisions of the law to deal with the removal of names of registered voters “on grounds that typically arise after an initial proper registration.” The provisions don’t apply to “revocation of an improperly granted registration of a noncitizen,” Hinkle ruled.

In fact, the judge wrote, “the NVRA does not require a state to allow a noncitizen to vote just because the state did not catch the error more than 90 days in advance.”

Moreover, the Justice Department is also wrong in claiming that the law bars all “systematic” removals of voters’ names.

As Hinkle ruled, during the 90-day period “a state may pursue a program to systematically remove registrants on request or based on a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death but not based on a change of residence.”

What “matters here,” the federal judge added, “is this: none of this applies to removing noncitizens who were never properly registered in the first place.”

It is true that in a deeply flawed, cursory analysis, a divided panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Southern District of Florida decision and held that the 90-day deadline did apply to the removal of aliens’ names from voter rolls.

But Florida didn’t appeal this obviously wrong decision by two appeals court judges to the entire 11th Circuit or to the Supreme Court. The 11th Circuit panel’s decision not only is wrong based on the text of the statute, but any interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act that would force a state to allow an ineligible alien who violated criminal law by registering to remain registered so he may cast a ballot in an upcoming election likely would render the law unconstitutional.

In 2019, in Bellitto v. Snipes, another case arising out of Florida, a different 11th Circuit panel held that in applying the NVRA, “Congress would not have mandated that the state register” an individual who “is not eligible to vote.”

If the NVRA does not require a state to register an ineligible alien to vote, it cannot be construed to require a state to maintain and continue the registration of an ineligible alien.

Alabama and Virginia should fight the Justice Department and be willing to take these cases all the way to the Supreme Court. Maintaining the security and integrity of the American election process and protecting voters against foreign interference that voids their votes requires no less.

Read Hans von Spakovsky’s complete Legal Memorandum: “The National Voter Registration Act Does Not Prevent States From Removing Aliens from Voter Registration Rolls at Any Time.”

Those numbers are not surprising to anyone who consumes a lot of political media. Tune into the establishment-friendly press and you’ll be inundated with stories about voter suppression in red states, recaps of the most dramatic skirmishes that happened outside the Capitol on January 6, and warnings about how Trump and his allies could actually take power after losing the upcoming election.

The fear, from the establishment’s perspective, is that after losing, Trump will successfully pressure Republican legislators in battleground states to appoint “alternate” electors that will keep Harris below the 270 electoral votes needed to win, which would send the election to the likely Republican-controlled House.

Without very explicit evidence of decisive voter fraud that the political class outright ignores, it’s hard to see a scheme like this working—considering that Trump isn’t already in power, Democrats have passed laws in recent years making it harder to appoint alternate electors, and many of the Republican legislators Trump would rely on have shown a reluctance to go along with the former president absent strong pressure from their constituents. But that hasn’t stopped the fear-mongering.

On the other side, the Trump-friendly alternative media is full of stories about local and state officials overturning election security laws, deleting drop box surveillance footage, actively registering non-citizens to vote, losing entire trays of mail-in ballots, and other tales of vote manipulation and even outright fraud.

Pair these stories with all the left’s freakouts about “voter suppression” in red states and the various assertions of foreign influence operations and it’s easy to see how so many voters became convinced that a victory by the other side would be illegitimate. Now add the establishment panic about a MAGA plot to overturn the election if they lose and the right’s awareness of the political establishment’s preparations to do the exact same thing had they lost in 2020 and it becomes clear why many are worried about what awaits us after election day.

The collapse of the public’s trust in elections mirrors the collapse in trust in several other institutions, like the federal judicial system, public health authorities, and the news media. While uncomfortable, the public losing trust in untrustworthy institutions is a good thing. It’s a necessary first step if the country is ever going to get on a better path.

The federal justice system has been used to go after the establishment’s political enemies since the beginning, public health authorities demolished any credibility they may have had with their deadly, totalitarian response to COVID-19, and the American news media has been actively misinforming the public in politically-expedient ways for essentially it’s entire history.

In the past decade or so, the American public has developed a much healthier level of skepticism toward these institutions. It is perfectly reasonable for that skepticism to carry over to federal elections.

After all, the political class—which includes politically-connected businesses—is making trillions of dollars in revenue thanks to various wars, innumerable regulations that protect them from competition, easy money from the Fed, and other lucrative government programs. It is not much of a jump to assume that, if able, the very people who have repeatedly lied us into unnecessary wars to line their pockets would be willing to use whatever means necessary to expand and protect their power and profits.

Together with the establishment-friendly media, the political class has placed a very high social cost on questioning the security of our elections in every instance except when it conveniently places the blame on a foreign government that Washington wants to demonize. Questioning the legitimacy of elections is “dangerous” unless you’re accusing Russia or Iran.

And whenever someone with a big enough voice casts doubt on past elections in an “unacceptable” way, the establishment is quick to shout them down with the same meaningless denunciation that there is no evidence of “widespread” election fraud.

Of course, if there were to be a conspiracy to either foment or permit voter fraud in a way that successfully flipped a national election, it would not be “widespread,” it would be targeted. Elections like this one come down to a handful of precincts—most of which are toss-up suburban and rural areas that surround blue cities in swing states. A conspiracy to commit or allow “widespread” voter fraud would be pointless and all but guarantee its discovery.

This is not to say you should accept every claim made about voter fraud or even that there is definitive proof that any previous elections were stolen in this fashion. And it’s certainly not to say that violence is an appropriate or productive response if the upcoming election appears like it was stolen.

Only that it would be healthy for more members of the American public to start questioning whether our system really works the way we learned it did in elementary school—where the president represents our collective will and acts as we would act to address the problems we face at home and abroad.

That simple story is an illusion that conveniently frames whatever the government is doing to us as an embodiment of everyone’s wishes and any opposition as a selfish stand against what everybody else wants. Many Americans are appropriately questioning a lot of what they’ve previously accepted as true. They ought to question this too.

Image Source: Mises Institute. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Daniel Fitzgerald, a State Department Official who allocates U.S. foreign aid across the entire Western Hemisphere says his agency is failing miserably at slowing down the mass-migration of illegals from Latin America (Central and South America). Like no other time in history, the U.S. government is actively replacing American citizens with illegal, Leftist immigrants, to try to secure (steal) the next POTUS and Congressional elections. It’s called the “Great Replacement” plan, and it’s working at full throttle right now. The state department officials are completely “puzzled” at why the U.S. government is keeping the borders wide open like this, but that is because they all read and watch FAKE NEWS, swallowing the Biden Regime’s narratives whole, and now they’re choking on the “fat.”

Open borders: It’s not government incompetence, it’s a premeditated plan to permanently replace conservative and independent Americans

Most Americans cannot wrap their head around the fact that their own government would like them dying and dead, while they get replaced by a new “demographic” of immigrants who want free government handouts forever, instantaneous amnesty, in exchange for zero constitutional rights. Then, these same Americans are shocked to find out that the China Flu injections they got, also known as mRNA spike protein gene therapy “vaccines,” are biological weapons of mass destruction. This is the main way the U.S. government, working in tandem with Big Pharma, is eliminating American citizens, while replacing them through the open borders policy. Get it?

What’s worse is these are not just families of immigrants seeking a better life and some American freedoms, they are mostly military-aged males who are criminals, and some involved in violent gangs who rape and murder American children and teens, and even get away with it all, thanks to Soros-appointed District Attorneys in almost every metropolitan city across the nation.

The Biden Regime is sending billions of dollars, and this is on record in fact, four billion over four years, into Central America as part of their “Root Causes Strategy.” In other words, this is Washington DC’s plan to help every want-to-be-American illegal immigrant afford to travel to the southern U.S. border, cross into America and start their new life, as a Democrat voter who votes for more communism. There is no way to sugar-coat this fact for the Americans who seek the truth and want to help protect this country from this mass-illegal-migration “policy” of the Left that is destroying America from the inside out, daily.

Nobody in Washington DC is trying to solve this “problem” because to them, it is the plan for remaining in power, since hardly a conscious American is planning to vote for the demented, ailing, arrogant and puppet-guy named Dark Brandon. Take a look at the illegal immigration statistics as of late, below:

Tune your apocalypse dial to Preparedness.news for updates on how illegal immigration is a tool for the communists in Washington DC to remain in power.

Sources for this article include:

• ProjectVeritas.com
• NaturalNews.com

Censorship enthusiasts, who habitually use the terms “dis/misinformation” to go after lawful online speech that happens to not suit their political or ideological agenda, now feel that debunking has failed them.

(That can be yet another euphemism for censorship – when “debunking” political speech means removing information those directly or indirectly in control of platforms don’t like.)

Enter “prebuking” – and regardless of how risky, especially when applied in a democracy, this is, those who support the method are not swayed even by the possibility it may not work.

Prebunking is a distinctly dystopian notion that the audiences and social media users can be “programmed” (proponents use the term, “inoculated”) to reject information as untrustworthy.

To achieve that, speech must be discredited and suppressed as “misinformation” (via warnings from censors) before, not after it is seen by people.

“A radical playbook” is what some legacy media reports call this, at the same time implicitly justifying it as a necessity in a year that has been systematically hyped up as particularly dangerous because of elections taking place around the globe.

The Washington Post disturbingly sums up prebunking as exposing people to “weakened doses of misinformation paired with explanations (…) aimed at helping the public develop ‘mental antibodies’.”

This type of manipulation is supposed to steer the “unwashed masses” toward making the right (aka, desired by the “prebunkers”) conclusions, as they decide who to vote for.

Even as this is seen by opponents as a threat to democracy, it is being adopted widely – “from Arizona to Taiwan (with the EU in between)” – under the pretext of actually protecting democracy.

Where there are governments and censorship these days, there’s inevitably Big Tech, and Google and Meta are mentioned as particularly involved in carrying out prebunking campaigns, notably in the EU.

Apparently Google will not be developing Americans’ “mental antibodies” ahead of the US vote in November – that might prove too controversial, at least at this point in time.

The risk-reward ratio here is also unappealing.

“There aren’t really any actual field experiments showing that it (prebunking) can change people’s behavior in an enduring way,” said Cornell University psychology professor Gordon Pennycook.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

We will see how this plays out but keep a close eye on how Erdogan handles his opposition going forward. Here’s a not-so-bold prediction: He’s going to crack down on dissent and grab up as much power as possible in the coming weeks.

According to the Associated Press:

Turkey’s main opposition party retained its control over key cities and made huge gains elsewhere in Sunday’s local elections, in a major upset to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had set his sights on retaking control of those urban areas.

With more than 90% of ballot boxes counted, incumbent Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, was leading by a wide margin in Turkey’s largest city and economic hub, according to the state-run Anadolu Agency. Mansur Yavas, the mayor of the capital, Ankara, retained his seat with a stunning 25-point difference over his challenger, the results indicated.

In all, the CHP won the municipalities of 36 of Turkey’s 81 provinces, according to Anadolu, making inroads into many strongholds of Erdogan’s party. It gained 37% of the votes nationwide, compared to 36% for the president’s party, marking the CHP’s greatest electoral victory since Erdogan came to power two decades ago.

Desperate despots are dangerous. Stay frosty.

Democrats and other leftists have joined in a campaign to claim that makes him a threat to “democracy,” although they are the ones skirting the ideology of democracy to censor others’ opinions and to try to keep their own political critics off ballots by putting them in jail.

But now an expert, a top state elections official, has confirmed that’s exactly what happened to President Trump.

It is a report at the Federalist that explains how West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, who is credited with extensive work to clean up and secure his state’s elections, also has been critical of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“‘When we have our own federal agencies lying to the American people, that’s the most insidious thing that we can do in elections,’ Warner told officials from the FBI and CISA on a panel at the February meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington, D.C., according to Wired’s Eric Geller,” the report said.

“While Geller did his best to defend the federal agency — under the suggestive headline, ‘How a Right-Wing Controversy Could Sabotage US Election Security’ — its history of censorship and election interference validate Warner’s concern,” the report said.

The Federalist explained CISA was set up in 2018 “to ostensibly ‘protect ‘critical infrastructure’ and guard against cybersecurity threats.’ It moved into the nefarious business of information management by partnering with Big Tech to silence speech that it deemed to be ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ or the Orwellian-sounding ‘malinformation.’”

It long has adopted censorship as a means to control the information Americans get.

Warner, in a recent debate, explained bluntly, 2020 was “rigged.”

“The election was stolen and it was stolen by the CIA,” he said.

The Federalist noted he cited ex-CIA chief Michael Morell’s testimony under oath to Congress that Antony Blinken, then a Biden adviser, “reached out” to him about the damning scandal details about the Bidens in the laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden.

That, Morell charged, “set in motion” the scheme in which 51 ex-intelligence officials claimed, without evidence, that the laptop scandal details were Russian disinformation.

“Yes, [Morell] colluded with [now-Secretary of State] Antony Blinken to sell a lie to the American people two weeks before the election for the very purpose of throwing the presidential election,” Warner said. “And the FBI covers it up.”

The FBI, in fact, chose to interfere in the election by telling media corporations to suppress the accurate reporting about the Biden scandals. A subsequent polling showed that probably took the election victory away from President Trump and gave it to Biden.

Morell, in fact, testified he pushed the letter to help Biden, “because I wanted him to win the election.”

Warner also noted the $400 million plus handed out by Mark Zuckerberg to elections officials who often used it to recruit Biden supporters.

The Federalist reported Warner already has cleaned up West Virginia’s voter rolls, cut ties with leftist influence organizations and now is running to be governor.

Election law expert Cleta Mitchell said, of Warner, “He speaks the truth — he is a true patriot and I only wish we had 50 state election officials just like him.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia are all holding primaries. Caucuses will be held in Alaska and Utah.

Ryan Walker, Heritage Action for America executive vice president, says that when you look at the states that have already held primaries, “Nikki Haley has not garnered more than 40% of the vote.” So, Walker says he will be watching to see whether the former South Carolina governor can go beyond that threshold in states voting Tuesday. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation, of which Heritage Action for America is the grassroots arm.)

Former President Donald Trump has already clinched GOP primary and caucus victories in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Idaho, and Missouri. Haley won the D.C. primary over the weekend.

Trump got a boost in media coverage ahead of the Super Tuesday voting when on Monday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in his favor and against Colorado’s efforts to remove his name from the ballot there citing the “Insurrection Clause” of the 14th Amendment. The ruling clears the way for Trump to earn more delegates on Tuesday ahead of the GOP convention in mid-July.

“A state cannot decide if a former president, or a former candidate, is allowed to be on the ballot, especially if they have not been convicted of a crime,” Walker said.

Walker joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss what issues are driving voters to the polls on Super Tuesday, and what the results could mean for determining who ultimately will be the GOP nominee for president.

Listen the podcast below:

The details about the situation involving Jefferson County, which encompasses multiple large suburbs that make up virtually all of the western part of the Denver metropolitan area, are revealed in a report in Complete Colorado.

It follows multiple reports of recent election fraud and failure, from studies showing potentially millions of mail-in ballots being submitted fraudulently to known undue influences and election interference on presidential races.

Complete Colorado said in its report it obtained emails that “show an acknowledgment by Jefferson County officials that the November election was held in violation of state statute.”

Further, the report confirmed “Colorado’s Secretary of State essentially telling them not to worry about it.”

The report detailed that in November, Cynthia Rasor, the senior elections project coordinator for Jefferson County, informed local governments that had 2023 elections that Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder Amanda Gonzalez “had failed to properly notice the election — a very basic legal requirement for all elections.”

Rasor blamed it on staff transitions.

“It came to our attention that our office failed to publish notice of this election in a general circulation newspaper within 20 days of the election,” she said in the email. “My staff and I understand the importance of adhering to all statutory obligations and sincerely apologize for this error.”

She said a new checklist would ensure “compliance” in the future.

The report noted, in fact, state law demands that no later than 20 days before each election, election officials shall provide “notice by publication of the election” in a general circulation newspaper that includes the date of election, the hours that polling locations and drop off locations will be open, the address of polling locations and the address of drop-off locations.

Gonzalez, a Democrat “rumored to be the candidate of choice” to replace current Secretary of State Jena Griswold in 2026, failed. But, the report said, she apparently contacted Griswold, another Democrat, and “was told, in essence — no harm, no foul.”

Complete Colorado noted that another email, from suburban Arvada officials to a council member, charged that, “Judd Choate, the Colorado State Election’s director, reviewed this matter and determined that Jeffco substantially complied with elections laws. Substantial compliance is the standard set forth in CRS sec. 1-1-103. Choate determined that no further corrective action was needed.”

Rasor, in an email, also confirmed state elections officials “advised them all was good,” the report said.

John Marriott, the Arvada council member who lost the race for mayor, said the clerk “should be ashamed of herself” and apologize, but it wouldn’t matter, because if the election was invalidated, the Democrats on his council would simply appoint their candidate anyway.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Taheri told the publication the key was whether the failure was “on purpose.”

“They would probably find that it was just an oversight unless it could be proven that someone was intentionally trying to deceive everyone,” she said.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].