BOOM: President Trump Is On Target In Wisconsin – Ballots Identified in Pristine Condition Similar to Fraudulent Ballots in Georgia and Michigan


by Joe Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:

President Trump’s team’s recent lawsuit in Wisconsin must be over the target.

Is this why a Madison, Wisconsin Attorney pushed back and threatened Gateway Pundit after our reporting on absentee and ‘indefinitely confined’ ballots in Wisconsin?

A good auditor, inspector, attorney or investigator knows that the people who scream the loudest often times are the ones who have things to hide.  They don’t want you to audit their work because they don’t want to get caught.  Is this why Madison, Wisconsin attorney Mike Haas reacted with threats to our post about suspicious absentee and ‘indefinitely confined’ ballots in Dane county?  Time will tell.


We shared last week about the absentee and ‘Indefinitely Confined’ (IC) ballots observed during a recount in Dane County held after the 2020 election.  Thousands of ballots were observed during the recount which were labeled as IC and absentee that were suspicious.

Thousands of IC votes were observed by recount watchers in Dane County that were in pristine condition rather than being folded or showing any sign of wear and tear.  The same was observed in thousands of absentee votes with the initials of ‘MLW’ on them.

The day after our post above, President Trump filed a suit in Wisconsin addressing these very ballots in question.  A report at Redstate summarized President Trump’s filing on Tuesday:

What was filed yesterday by the Campaign was the next step in the process of contesting the outcome of an election under Wisconsin lay, which follows the completion of the recount requested by the Trump Campaign under Wisconsin law given the narrow margin of the outcome of the election.

This Complaint initiating the Election Contest challenges several categories of ballots that were counted by the Election Boards of Dane and Milwaukee Counties during the recount process, all of which were the subject of objections by the Trump Campaign during the recount process.  The objections were denied by the Election Boards, and the ballots were included in the final tabulated results.  Specifically, the Campaign makes the following distance claims with respect to alleged invalid ballots:

  1.  Whether absentee ballots issued in-person to voters by municipal clerks’ offices in Milwaukee [and] Dane Counties without the required written applications are illegal and invalid.
  2. Whether absentee ballots accompanied by incomplete certifications or on which municipal clerks added missing information in contravention of Wisconsin law are illegal and invalid.
  3. Whether absentee ballots cast by electors claiming “Indefinite Confinement” status, which status was claimed on or after March 25, 2020, for which there was no voter identification provided are illegal and invalid.
  4. Whether stationing poll workers, receiving ballots, witnessing ballot certifications, and other clerk’s office activities in Madison’s “Democracy in the Park” events complied with Wisconsin Election laws.
  5. Whether relief by drawdown is appropriate for legal violations committed at the “Democracy in the Park” events.

The Complaint alleges that over 170,000 absentee ballots were accepted and counted in the two counties when the voter did not fill out an application for an absentee ballot.

The Complaint alleges that over 5,500 absentee ballots were accepted and counted when a person in the Election Clerk’s office filled out some of the information required on the outside of the ballot envelope.

More than 28,000 votes are claimed to have been cast by individuals who did not meet the definition of “indefinite confinement” and thereby avoided the otherwise mandatory voter identification requirement.

Finally, it alleges that more than 17,000 ballots were received and later counted at “Democracy In The Park” events.

Redstate continues on the President’s case:

There is an absentee ballot application form issued by the State of Wisconsin.  It would seem reasonable to presume that the statute’s reference to a “written application” is a reference to this form.  Further, the statute directs the Clerk to retain each such absentee ballot application until such time as destruction is authorized by law.

But in the President’s case:

Yet the complaint alleges that the Clerks’ offices in Dane and Milwaukee counties issued absentee ballots in-person and interpreted the “application” requirement to be satisfied in another fashion.

[I]n both Dane and Milwaukee Counties, the Canvassing Boards found that the Clerk’s receipt of form EL-122 (the “Envelope” in which the absentee ballot is placed by the elector after it has already been received by the elector and after it has been completed) was sufficient to satisfy the statutory written application requirement.

Read More @