Much of what follows is based on Kevin Moncla’s excellent work.
The Georgia audit, which supplied the dishonest Secretary of State with confirmation that the election in his state was acceptable, was not fine in and of itself. This is confirmed by damaging material obtained through a FOIA request.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
We discovered in January that the businesses chosen by Maricopa County in Arizona to conduct 2020 election audits were not certified when the county chose them, as had been represented.
One of the businesses chosen by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to do the national audit was also utilized by crooked Brad Raffensperger to conduct an audit in Georgia in November 2020, following the early November election. Because Pro V&V was not accredited at the time, we observed that the audit there was not conducted by a professional auditor. This clean audit opinion was issued after no ballots from the election were examined.
In January 2021, we discussed Pro V&V in depth in this piece after they completed their audit in Georgia.
When we tried to look at the Georgia forensic audit by Pro V&V, which Secretary of State Raffensperger had so proudly touted as having certified the election results, something unexpected happened.
Every Georgia audit reference or link took me to the same Georgia Secretary of State page, where Raffensperger summarized the audit’s flawless results:
However, the Pro V&V audit report was nowhere to be seen. We submitted a FOIA request to the state of Georgia for audit records after an exhaustive search and astonishment that the audit report had gone unpublished. The following items were included in our request:
I’m requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that detail the results, contract, scope, and report of the audit that the Secretary of State contracted or directed Pro V&V to perform on the Dominion Voting equipment and machines after the 2020 general election under Georgia Open Records Act 50.18.70 et seq. Please provide the names of the personnel who physically did the audit, as well as any scope of work they were and were not permitted or permitted to perform that is missing from the report, as well as the rationale for this omission.
This item sells for $39.95 on Amazon. Today's special promotion is offering a massive discount on this item. President Trump 2020 Coin (Gold & Silver Plated) - Claim 1 Free OR Claim a Discount + Free Shipping This coin is a symbol of President Trump's victory and success. Get Coin HERE Or Click on the image below.
What the state of Georgia returned in response to a FOIA request is strange and difficult to explain. There were three documents that were attached to the mail:
1. “Field Audit Memo.pdf” A note from Pro V&V, presumably explaining the nature of the task required by the Secretary of State.
2. “Re Memo Audit for Review redacted.pdf” is a document that has been redacted. The Georgia Secretary of State’s office sent an email endorsing the work specified in the Pro V&V memo.
3. “Field Audit Report Final 1.1.pdf” (Field Audit Report Final 1.1.pdf) (Field Audit Report Final 1.1 The Pro V&V audit report that resulted. We discovered a minor flaw in the “Memo for Field Audit” when reviewing it. The memo is dated “Friday, July 16th, 2021”:
We then double-checked that this email was from Jack Cobb.
The memo was not only written last Friday, but it was written by Pro V&V’s owner, Jack Cobb.
The Georgia Secretary of State’s office contacted Pro V&V, who wrote the document to provide in response to our FOIA request, leaving little room for any other reasonable explanation.
“Re Memo Audit for Review redacted.pdf,” the second document we got, is apparently an email from the Office of the Secretary of State approving the work recommended by Pro V&V in the memo above. The relevant section approving the work is as follows:
The field audit results are meant to be in the third and final file, “Field Audit Report Final 1.1.pdf.” Six pages altogether, approximately half of which are standard terminology and voting system components definitions:
It’s worth noting that the report indicates components were examined “across six (6) counties,” yet the work memo (which was approved as intended) says “…components in the four locations.”
The audit was not only conducted by an uncertified vendor at the time, but the report also claims that four and six counties were chosen for inspection. There were no ballots examined by the firm.
It’s disgraceful that Pro V&V made their conclusion based on only a few machines and no ballots.