Posted on 01/22/2022 7:04:50 AM PST by Dr. Franklin
On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Assembly held another election integrity hearing to present evidence of voter fraud and irregularities that have been found in their investigation of the rigged 2020 election.
And just like last month’s election hearing, they dropped some serious bombshells.
Yesterday’s hearing built on those findings and presented more questions for the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has failed to answer previous questions on the 2020 election.
They did however respond to the reported 119,283 active voters who have been registered for over 100 years, but their weak response just didn’t cut it.
Wisconsin Assembly Attorney Dean O’Donnell, who is an expert analyst on the election integrity team, called out the official explanation that was given, saying “it does not hold water,” before dropping some more of his team’s jaw-dropping findings of corruption in the 2020 election.
According to O’Donnell, they found an astronomical 569,277 registered voters had an application date of 1/1/1918, which accounts for roughly one out of every fourteen voters in the state’s database.
Oh, and wait, there’s more. One out of every five of those “phantom voters” apparently cast a ballot in 2020 – a whopping 115,252 of them to be exact.
Insane.
I wonder how many checked the box for Biden… I’d say it’s somewhere between 100% and 100%,
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Enlighten us, o wise one. Lemme guess? You defer to google? Hmm. Figures.
The voting age back then was 21 years old, not 18.
Doesn’t matter...it’s obviously close enough for Voter Registrar Government work.
The thing the RATS and RINOS have going in their favor is the incredibly short attention span of Americans. If it lasts longer than a Movie-Of-The-Week, we don’t care.
Bookmark
144?? Hmmm...
(2022 - 1918) + 21 = 125 years old.
No matter...it’s the cheese! I’m moving to Wisconsin.
Let’s ask our resident Wisconsin expert Diana...
Erasing all doubts if we have free and fair elections……….
Not a database error. Unlikley they were entered on a registration form on a computer. In that scenario the sw would default the registration date to entry date or require an entry value. Most likely these were generated from some lust and then loaded via SQL or some mass insert code and the programmer didn’t have registration date as one of the columns so the DB table defaulted the date to an initial value, i.e. xxx..1918.
“Sham Shamnnity”
I grew up in WI. My Grandfather was a Republican before he died.
Bookmark
Do you have any verifiable evidence to back that up? We can play their game, too...
If you are generating voters from some public or semi-public data, generally DOB like SS# is not available. This is a smoking gun of generated voters from some list.
It won’t matter if WI decertify the fraudulent votes if the democrats get their election reform bill passed because only the democrats will be able to count the votes.
Welcome back to the USSR
“If you are generating voters from some public or semi-public data, generally DOB like SS# is not available. This is a smoking gun of generated voters from some list.”
EXACTLY - hence the opening for fraud.
Bttt.
5.56mm
“14% have a registration date of 1/1/1918?
I bet that if data isn’t input for registration date, it defaults to 1/1/1918. Furthermore, I bet if you look at the addresses on these registrations, most of the buildings didn’t even exist in 1918.
This is a database error, not fraud.”
***********************************************
Kinda like Y2K. I agree with you.
Amendment XXVIII - A voters registration shall be purged immediately upon notification of their death or up detection that they have not voted in 3 consecutive elections. All states must implement this prior to first election following ratification of this amendment.
But our rino Representative Gallagher insists it was an honest election. Didn’t take him any time at all to find out his money source and it wasn’t his constituents.
Thanks…good clarification post.
Highly unlikely, any decent database will insist that a date is entered in a required date field. Also, again in any decent database, "date registered" would default to the date the record (registration) was created. I can't think of any instance where a default date would be 1/1/1918.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.