WIIT editor note: This transcript is posted publicly with two specific interests in mind: supporting those who value freedom and democracy and in assisting legal due process.
Full transcript of Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committe – dated 25th November 2020
[Transcript commences at 05:00]
Argall: The appointed time having come and gone, let’s ask our state senators and our state representatives to join us. Today’s Senate Majority Policy Committee hearing is the second of our hearings this year, designed to help us learn more about the conduct of the 2020 elections in Pennsylvania. Today’s hearing was requested by Senator Doug Mastriano, who in addition to serving the 264,000 residents of the 33rd District in Adams, Cumberland, Franklin and York counties, also serves as the Chair of the Senate’s Intergovernmental Operations Committee.As Doctor Mastriano can attest, this subject is an excellent example not of the normal layer cake model of intergovernmental operations but of the marble cake model. We have examples of local government, county government, state government and federal government, all very much involved in the design and conduct of an election. And as we’ve seen, not always in a logical, rational, or understandable model. I have frequently reminded the students in the college classes which I have taught, as well as more recently our own Governor, that senators and representatives and governors are not kings, we’re not judges, we’re not dictators. We are agents of public opinion, elected by the people for a fixed term as lawmakers, to provide oversight on behalf of the public over our government agencies and of course as lawmakers. We’re here today because we have all been receiving massive numbers of phone calls and emails and personal comments when we’re out walking our dogs in our neighborhoods about the conduct of this election. My office has received a record number of contacts, over 25,000 phone calls and emails as of yesterday. We all know that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth changed the guidance to election officials the day before the November 3rd election, which added a completely new element of doubt to our process. Issues that should have been resolved by the legislature, as recommended by Supreme Court Justice Max Baer were instead carried out by the Secretary without the approval of the Senator of the House. This committee held a similar event in January of 2020 on recent changes to our state’s election laws. At that time, the Secretary of the Commonwealth assured us that this process would be carried out smoothly. The large number of complaints which we have received from our constituents tells us a very different story. That’s why we’re here today again, as agents of public opinion. Senator Mastriano and his staff have assembled a number of witnesses who will share their experiences with us regarding the conduct of this year’s election and we look forward to listening to that testimony. But before we turn there, I want to introduce my good friend, my caucus administrator, and as of December 1st, our incoming Majority Leader, our congratulations to Kim Ward, thank you for joining us. Please Kim, your statement.
Ward: Thank you Senator Argall and thank you Senator Mastriano for inviting me to participate in what I think is very, very important to the people of Pennsylvania. As Senator Argall has said, we have been inundated with calls and emails and messages in our social media. People are not feeling good, nor confident about the process and the results because of that process. The President and his team deserve…this is the President of the Untied States, not the President of your school board, so we need to make sure that they have the room, that they need to explore every avenue, so when this is over, we know that the process, what worked in it, what didn’t work in it, and what we need to do to fix it and what we may need to do to address it. This has been very, very exhausting, and hard on so many in Pennsylvania. And I look forward to listening to what the testifiers and Mr Giuliani have to say to us today, so thank you very much again and thank you. Thank you, Senator Mastriano.
Argall: Thank you Kim. Senator Mastriano, please.
Mastriano: Thank you Senator Argall and Senator Ward, thank you for being here and supporting us here, and welcome everybody to this most historic occasion and this most historic town. And what happened here in 1863, I think today we’re going to see a turning of the tide, because we have not really heard the truth, or the arguments made on the other side or what happened. And we’re dealing with the government and the leadership in Harrisburg and they want to close their ears to what’s happened during this election and sadly, many in the media that are complicit and want to write off what happened. So for me, on this battlefield and remembering what happened 157 years ago and especially 157 years ago last week, where Abraham Lincoln gave his most famous address. And I think his final sentence captures why we’re here today. He said that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish in the earth, and everything is at stake in what happened there in this election cycle, everything, the Republic is at stake. This is no game for us. And for any veteran in this room here, who wore the uniform, such as Brigadier General Scott Perry, thank you for being here, sir, put their lives on the line here, fighting for a country and see that there’s a group in this state and country willing to throw away our valuable and precious freedoms here for power. You know, for me… [applause]…there you go. And Mr Mayor, it’s going to be a fantastic hearing today. Despite pleas from our citizens, the governor refuses to even consider that there is any shenanigans in the elections here, in our state, a state of 13 million people, and he wants to discount because his guy won, that nothing bad happened, and that’s just unacceptable. If there’s any hint of fraud out there, we need to investigate. Any governor serving the people of this Commonwealth would put aside his petty politics and find out the truth. If anyone was defrauded. And at this point here, he’s unwilling to do that. Let me point out some hard facts here. We are in Adams County, named after our 2nd President, John Adams, who famously said, facts are stubborn things. Let me lay out several of these inconvenient truths, as Al Gore would have us think. There have been many allegations of voting law violations across the state and a governor serving the people would have to move heaven and earth to ensure no-one was defrauded, but yet, he’s not moved to action. And even his Secretary of State, of course, says that there was no shenanigans of great concern. And I would remind everyone that I was a no vote on the confirmation of Kathleen Boockvar four times [inaudible 12:09] interacted with her. I asked her why are elections in Afghanistan more secure than in Pennsylvania? And she sat there and blinked and couldn’t give me a straight answer. That the elections are more safe and secure in a war-torn country, devastated by conflict since 1979, and what is going on here? The place [inaudible 12:27] this all started in 1776 and we can’t get an election right. You’ve got to be kidding me here. And so as a result of her inaction, the governor’s inaction, refusal to even look into any of the allegations and to discount the very essential freedoms of our citizens. We are here today to try to find out what the heck happened in the election. You know, and likewise, our Attorney General, our senior law enforcement official here…you know, instead of being focused on making sure things were lined up and kosher, before one vote was counted in Pennsylvania, the day before the election, declared Biden the winner. I mean, there’s nothing to see here? Could you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot? Would the media be so gracious and merciful and kind if it was a Republican? Absolutely not. And so Houston, we have a problem here. You know, one of the most troubling things in this whole endeavour here, and it’s not just because of the COVID, it’s just a lack of transparency and accountability. So we’re here to start shedding light on the darkness. And then of course, we have a Supreme Court that rewrote election law. You know, Act 77 [inaudible 13:43] and we could debate that. But the real problem was is one that Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided they’re going to write legislation and rewrite our law. And because of that obviously Pennsylvania, they got a lot of problems there and that opened the door to all the shenanigans and abuses and folly that we’re dealing with here in the state this day. So what’s going on here? Thousands of people from across the Commonwealth have reached out to us, tens of thousands, asking and demanding action. They deserve it. And as a result of the inability of our executive branch to do their job, we’re stepping in here. We’re co-equal members and we’re going to do our job. We’re looking for transparency and truth. There’s going to be no grandstanding here. We’re after facts. And we’re going to have a good layout here of what happened and you’re going to have to decide, good people of Pennsylvania, on what happened and whether there’s a strong case to be made or not. You know, the forgotten men and women of our great state feel betrayed by their government. And I’m with them. I feel the betrayal as well. So we undertake these proceedings today to find out what happened and then hopefully come up with an approach where that never happens again. And the issues are galore. You’re going to hear about poll watchers being denied access, or election software vendors refuse to testify before the General Assembly. What have they got to hide? Do we expect the people to trust their government? And we’ve got to earn their trust. And this is no game. And the very Republic very much is at stake. Anyone who loves this country has to put aside their petty parson politics and allow the light to shine where it is. And we’re going to find the truth and celebrate it. You know, as a soldier, and I was elected member of the state senate, I’m not going to stand aside, and neither are the members around me are as well. We’re going to fight the good fight for freedom. It’s to cure our Republic. Too many good men and women have gone before us who’ve given their lives here and if they cast it aside now for power play, it’s unacceptable. It’s not going to happen [applause]. We do our great men and women in uniform and those who lay down their lives and gave the last full measure of devotion a great disservice if we stand aside and allow bureaucrats and corrupt politicians to steal their voice and maybe even steal an election. We’ll find out. John 8:36 says that if Jesus sets you free, you’re free indeed. We’re going to walk as free people in Pennsylvania. This is where it all started. We choose this day to walk as free men and women and honour the sacrifice not only Jesus on Calvary but also in honour of the sacrifice of brave men and women in uniform who fought for and secured our freedoms. We will be relentless in our pursuit of the transparency, of accountability and truth. The time for dithering, politics and games is over. The time for truth and justice is now. In conclusion, as Benjamin Franklin was leaving Constitutional Hall in 1787, he was approached by Mrs Powell, who ran up to him – we surmise she knew him personally – and she said, well, Mr Franklin, what do we have? A Monarchy or a Republic? And he said, a Republic, if you can keep it. This is our time to keep this Republic. Thank you and God bless you.
Argall: Thank you. Thanks, Senator Mastriano [applause]. We turn now to the introductions of our House and Senate members. Let’s begin with our representatives here at this end of the table. Gentlemen, ladies.
Zimmerman: Yeah, Representative Dave Zimmerman, serving the North-east part of Lancaster County.
Rothman: Representative Greg Rothman, 87th District, Cumberland County.
Jones: Representative Mike Jones, 93rd District, York County.
Schemel: Representative Paul Schemel, portions of Franklin County.
Kaufman: Representative Rob Kaufman, 89th District, Northern Franklin County.
Borowiz: Representative Stephanie Borowiz from the 76th District. I’m honoured to be here, fighting for freedom. Thanks.
Ward: Senator Judy Ward from Blair County, representing Blair, parts of Huntington, parts of Franklin County, part of Cumberland County and all of Fulton County.
Argall: You’ve already met Senator Kim Ward. I believe you know Senator Mastriano. There we go.
Scavello: Good afternoon, I’m Senator Mario Scavello from Monroe and Northampton County and I can see New Jersey from my district.
Regan: Senator Mike Regan, from Cumberland and York County.
Moul: Good afternoon, state representative Dan Moul. Welcome to my 91st legislative district.
Ryan: Representative Frank Ryan from Lebanon County, [inaudible 19:20]. Thank you.
Argall: We are also joined on Zoom. Senator Brooks and Senator Hutchinson from North-western Pennsylvania, Senator Yaw from the Williamsport area, Senator Stefano from South-western Pennsylvania, Senator Laughlin from Erie, Senator Martin from Lancaster County, Senator Pittman from Indiana County, Senator Pat Brown from Lehigh Valley. Also my job as Chairman is to remind our panellists to keep their microphones muted until it is your turn to speak. And also remind everyone to strictly observe our time limits. One other reminder to our senators and witnesses at the request of our senate attorneys, this is a legislative hearing. Our purpose is to listen to the complaints of our constituents, the oversight of government agencies and the need for possible legislation. We all need to conduct ourselves accordingly. With that being said, Senator Mastriano, I believe you want to introduce our first witness for 15 minutes? And we will hold to the representatives and senators so you understand we will hold all of our questions until the conclusion of the 6th panel.
Mastriano: I would just simply say, welcome to America’s Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Giuliani, for being here.
Rudy Giuliani: Senators, Representatives, Senator Mastriano and all the distinguished members of the legislature of Pennsylvania, we are very, very honoured and very appreciative that you are giving us an opportunity to be heard, which we’ve been denied almost uniformly by the media and by legislators elsewhere. All we ask is that you listen to the facts that we’re presenting and then evaluate it. I can’t help but note that we’re doing it here in Gettysburg. Over 156 years ago, the fate of our country hung in the balance right here on this hallowed ground for three relentless days of bloody, close combat between two armies that lost over 50,000 casualties. The fate of our republic was really decided that we’d be one nation, one union, one government, sharing values that are enormously important to us. And I don’t want to overstate it, but I do believe that those values are at stake, not only in this election, but in the way this election was conducted and in what we’re going to do about it. Because if we allow elections in the future to be conducted the way this election was conducted, we will have lost our representative democracy. During the course of this election we’ve come pretty close to losing our right of free speech.
There’s been censorship that I’ve never seen before of an incredible nature by Big Tech, big networks, big companies. They only allow one side to be heard and they refuse to allow the other side to be heard. It’s almost as if they’re afraid the American people, if they should learn these facts, will find out just who they are and what they’re about. This voter fraud that took place – which as you will see from the witnesses that we call – had several dimensions to it, several different ways in which it was done. The most dangerous thing is it is very, very similar in at least six states that we’ve been able to study. In other words, what we’re going to describe to you with these witnesses happened in roughly the same way in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. Primary device were the mail-in ballots. You know there was a fierce debate over whether we should have mail-in ballots in the first place. Many scholars, many experts always felt that mail-in ballots were very dangerous because they’re very easy to forge. It leads to more defrauding. We were warned by Justice Souter, among others. We were warned by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker.
In a report that they did on how to make elections more secure, they warned us that the one thing to do is do not go to general mail-in voting because every place it’s been used, it’s led to tremendous fraud. And that was reiterated – believe it or not – in an article in the New York Times in 2012, an article they have now forgotten they wrote that explained the same thing. And I think what you’re going to find as you study your mail-in ballot procedure here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and then in the six other places, this was a terrible mistake and it allowed the leadership of a party that had become pretty expert at voter fraud to really go wild. So the witnesses we present are going to first show you that in the case of Philadelphia and in the case of Allegheny County, and one or two other counties, the mail-in ballots that were received were not inspected at all by any Republican. They were hidden from Republicans. In the case of Philadelphia and Allegheny County, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I do believe the witnesses will show that a Republican never got to see a single ballot. Now, you know how important that is to determining whether it is a valid ballot or not.
There’s only one time you get to do that and that’s when you separate the envelope that possesses the verifying information from the ballot. The moment you separate them you can no longer verify. You can’t go back and recount. You can’t go back and check paper ballot against the machine ballot because it’s a private ballot, it’s an anonymous ballot. We want to keep it that way. The only thing that identifies it is that outer envelope. At that moment, when they’re separated, gone for ever. That’s the moment at which inspections have been allowed time immemorial in America – Pennsylvania, all over other 49 states. Several of the witnesses here have been doing this for 20 or 30 years. They’ve never heard of a situation in which the mail-in ballot was just put in without allowing a Republican, a Democrat, even third party members to take one look at it and object to it, for the very reason that it’s too prone to fraud. Think about this. In your state, Republicans were uniformly not allowed, kept out, put in chutes like they were cows, to keep them away from seeing these ballots. Never happened before. Not only that, the same thing was done in Michigan.
The same thing was done in Wisconsin and on and on and on. What’s the chance that on the morning of November 3rd or 4th when they started the count that in each one of those places the Democrat leadership of these highly-controlled Democrat cities – that have some history for corruption, and in the case of Philadelphia a long history of voter fraud, I could show you the convictions, I don’t think I have to – what are the odds that they’re all going to wake up with the same idea? After years and years of always examining together absentee ballots, all of a sudden, in the year in which we have a couple of million of them per state, we’re not going to allow any Republicans to see them. The person in Philly figures that out, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Las Vegas, Nevada? Or is it more likely that this was a common plan? That maybe started with the whole idea of having mail-in ballots because it gives you a much wider range to cheat. When you had just a small number of absentee ballots, like 400,000, you have a certain range that you can cheat. When you have 2.5 million, you have a much bigger range to do that.
So when you hear that testimony about not being allowed to see the ballot, you have to understand it’s much more important than just that individual ballot. On election night, when I went to sleep – maybe when you did – President Trump was leading in your state by somewhere around 700 to 800,000 votes, depending on when you went to sleep. That’s a huge number of votes. 65% of the vote had been cast. Under normal circumstances, like if this were a fair media, your state would have been called for Trump. I mean, Virginia was called with 10% of the vote. It turned out to be separated by 1%. I think we may have actually won Virginia. But that’s another battle. Michigan, we were ahead by 300,000 votes, Wisconsin more, Georgia, we were down to 90% and ahead. What are the odds that they all switched overnight? They just switched by the next day. I think you’re going to see how that happened. And I think there are a couple of statistics that you have to really closely look at. I’ll just mention them and then we’ll move onto the witnesses. We have calculated and the evidence will show that there were 682,770 mail-in ballots that were entered into your vote in just Allegheny County and in Philadelphia that were not observed by any single Republican.
Those ballots could have all been for Joe Biden. They could have all been for someone else. They could have had no identifying data. They could have been from the same person. There could have been multiples of them. There could have been no name on them. We have no idea if that’s true. And it will be very hard now to put them together. We could ask and you could subpoena all of the outer envelopes. It would be very interesting to take a look at the 682,770 outer envelopes. It would be very interesting if they were kept. And it would be very interesting to see how many of them weren’t filled out. But in any event, under the law of your state, which is set by you, those ballots are illegal. The judge, mistakenly in his opinion, said that we want to disenfranchise six million people. We don’t want to disenfranchise anyone. We want to disqualify 682,000 votes so that 74 million people are not disenfranchised. Because that’s what happened by the cheating that went on here. I’ll give you one other enormously puzzling statistic. You sent out in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1,823,148 mail-in ballots. You received back 1.4 million approximately.
However in the count for President, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for that 700,000 difference between the number of ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count. That number, 2,589,242 was on your government website until yesterday. And yesterday it was removed without explanation. I’m going to be very interested in hearing what the explanation is. And I can’t imagine you could possibly certify without knowing the explanation to that. As well as the explanation to the 22,686 mail-in ballots that were returned on the day they were mailed. That’s a trick. How about 32,591 were returned the day after they were mailed? Another 20,000 were returned before they were mailed. Of course, I think this is a kind of a low count and I guess the crooks in Philadelphia are disappointed in this. They only submitted 8,021 from dead people – mail-in ballots for dead people. It’s probably easier for dead people to submit mail-in ballots than it is to vote in person. You had about 30,000 of those. We’re checking the records of the cemeteries around Philadelphia. You have 4,984 mail-in ballots that were never requested and on and on and on and on.
Your election – because of these two counties and maybe one other – is a sham, is a disgrace to your state. And finally, I don’t need to remind you of this, I think I need to remind America of this. The election for the President of the United States is not run by the Governor of your State. It’s not run by your Election Commissioner. The United States Constitution makes it clear who has the responsibility for running this election. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of our Constitution. It doesn’t say that ABC gets to call the winner, or CNN. It says each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors. It’s the state legislature that controls this process. It’s your power. It’s your responsibility. And I think you know, and you have to convince the rest of your members, Republican and Democrat, they owe that to the people of their state and they owe that to the people of the United States. Because if this happens without consequence, if they can just enter 600,000, some odd mail-in ballots without allowing a single Republican to view it, what’s to say that next time they won’t do a million? Or two million?
I know crooks really well. You give them an inch and they take a mile. And you give them a mile and they take your whole country. So now we’ll proceed with the witnesses.
Chairman: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Giuliani. I’ve been informed that we have also been joined on Zoom by Senator Kristen Phillips-Hill, Representative Dawn Keefer, Representative Barb Gleim from Central Pennsylvania, Representative Daryl Metcalfe from Butler County and Senator Langaholc from Johnstown area. Senator Mastriano, would you like to introduce our next panel for the…looks to me, several people for 15 minutes as well?
Mastriano: Yes, thank you Senator Argall. So our witnesses…first off, Jenna Ellis, do you have any comments for the floor? Legal adviser to President Trump.
Jenna Ellis: Thank you very much, and I’ll reserve my comments for the end, and I would just echo everything that the Mayor so eloquently stated. Thank you very much.
Mastriano: Thank you. [This is a revised list here]. So we’d like to call forth Justin Kweder from Philadelphia. Justin, are you here?
Justin Kweder: I’m here.
Mastriano: Okay, [inaudible 36:20]. If you can come up to the table please, my friend? And Kim Peterson out of Pittsburgh? Kim, are you here?
Kim Peterson: Yeah, right here.
Mastriano: Come forth please. We have a seat for you here. [Inaudible 36:31].
Argall: We were going to do four.
Mastriano: Okay. Leah? Leah Hopes? Where are you, Leah, please come forth. Kayla, could you push those two chairs over? Thank you. And that American flag is mine, if you set it on the table, I’d appreciate it, thanks. And then Greg Stenstrom from Delaware County, you’re Zooming in, I believe? Oh, he’s here? Yeah, of course, I met you. Come on over brother. [Inaudible 37:02].
Argall: Okay, if you can…among yourselves please, divide up the next 15 minutes and again, we’ll hold our questions until the end. Please begin.
Justin Kweder: I’ll start. Thank you, senators and representatives, for inviting me to this important hearing. My name is Justin C Kweder, K-w-e-d-e-r. I am a resident and registered voter in the City and County of Philadelphia. I’m an attorney. I am barred here in the Commonwealth. I am a volunteer, certified GOP canvass observer. I was present at the Philadelphia Convention Center during the pre-canvass, canvass, processing and counting of the ballots cast in this year’s general election. I was first present as an observer at the Convention Center and at the count on election day. I returned as a volunteer observer to watch the process every day for the next ten days. I’d approximate I was there for about 85 hours over those ten days. Part of the reason that I kept going back was so that I could authoritatively speak about what I saw. And again, thank you for letting me be here, because what I saw was problematic to say the least. I can tell you that I am an eyewitness to many issues and irregularities that were observed in Philadelphia with the processing and counting of the vote. I was a witness to too many issues and irregularities to cover in a brief opening statement.
And as such, I will now focus on two issues that I did personally observe. First, the Philadelphia Board of Elections processed hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots with zero civilian oversight or observation. The mail-in ballots were handled, processed, opened and counted in Hall F of the Convention Center. Hall F is a vast room, approximately 350 feet by 350 feet. That’s about 120,000 square feet. The Board of Elections erected a fence approximately 50 feet into the hall that ran the length of the room. All observers were corralled behind the fence. More than 100 board workers processed and opened mail-in ballots on the other side of the fence. These masked workers were arranged throughout the 120,000 square feet at a distance from the observers of about 10 feet to more than 200 feet away from us. Unlike what some may have reported in the media, the vast majority – and I’d estimate it at at least 96 per cent of the board workers were processing mail-in ballots 15 to 200 plus feet from us. Due to the distance of the workers from the erected fences it was impossible for me or any observer to see what the workers were doing with any type of specificity.
The observers were not able to challenge any decision or determination being made about the processing of these mail-in ballots. No civilian oversight over hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, zero opportunity for observers to observe, challenge or inspect the mail-ins being opened. I find this to be an issue and to be irregular. Move onto the second point. The pink highlighted duplicate ballots which I haven’t heard about, at least not in the media. As the weeks progressed, the observers were informed that the board was going to be duplicating damaged mail-in ballots that could not be read by the scanners. I was told that there were more than 5,000 of these damaged ballots. I was also told that the actual number was unknown and could be much higher. The process for duplicating these ballots was for two workers to work as a pair. One worker reading out loud what was marked on the original, damaged ballot and the second worker using a pink highlighter to mark the choice on the duplicate ballot. The board’s plan then was to run the pink highlighted ballots through the scanners where they would be counted as votes. The board workers did this pink highlighter duplication work over the course of a couple days until thousands of ballots were duplicated with these pink highlighters.
On Thursday, November 12th the observers were informed that the pink highlighter could not be read by the scanners. They all had to be done again. All of the duplicated mail-in ballots had to be fixed. And the Philadelphia Board of Elections’ solution to this problem was to give the workers who were working alone individually stacks of hundreds of what amounted to blank mail-in ballots. And the workers individually were to fill in the correct highlighted ovals with dark pen. No observation. They were marking thousands of blank mail-in ballots. The workers did this double recreation work for hours before the observers realized what was going on because we weren’t told what was going on. Only when the observers confronted the Deputy Commissioner about this irregularity was a system set up where the workers would show the observers each double recreated mail-in ballot by flashing it at them for a second from a distance of six to twenty feet away, for as good as that was. Thousands of mail-in ballots were ultimately, counted in this way. Again, I find this to be an issue and to be irregular. As Senator Mastriano recently said, elections are a fundamental principle of our democracy.
Unfortunately, Pennsylvanians have lost faith in the electoral system, end quote. And let me add a quote that Philadelphia City Commissioner of Elections Al Schmidt just made, when he said about these recent elections in Philadelphia, that these were the most secure and transparent elections in Philadelphia’s history, end quote. Now, I wasn’t around for every election in Philadelphia’s history, but I can tell you as an eyewitness for 10 days for more than 80 hours what I saw was not a secure and transparent election. There are major concerns about the legitimacy of hundreds of thousands of ballots that were counted in Philadelphia. Excuse me. All right. Let me finish with this. May I suggest to you that any restoration of faith on the part of Pennsylvanians in our electoral system can and will only be accomplished after an investigation into this election. Only after the law is properly applied to this election. The idea that we can just move on by making sure that the law is properly applied in the next election is in my opinion unacceptable [applause]. The issues, irregularities, and illegitimacy of what I saw leads me to conclude that the laws of the Commonwealth and of the United States were not being followed in Philadelphia when hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted in this year’s general election.
Action must be taken now to maintain our free and fair elections and to preserve and protect our elections’ integrities. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Kim Peterson: Good afternoon, my name is Kim Peterson, and I appreciate that I’m here today thank you all for having me here today. I’m from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I am here to tell you what I witnessed as a canvasser at the warehouse where they open the mail-in ballots and separate them from the envelopes as we’ve been discussing. As…the afternoon of election day I went to the um…down to the warehouse to be a canvasser to…as a republican representative, to be able to watch them open the mail-in ballots and as the gentleman Justin just described, as I was led back to the area where we were able to view them opening the mail-in ballots we were kept in a corral that was at least 15 to 20 feet from any of the representatives and that was the closest people opening the ballots. There were people that were, you know, 50, 100 feet from us. The closest that was 20 feet about and you could not see at all the envelope the ballot itself, where they were stacking them, anything that was required that we were able to be able to see. There were also monitors up around the area. The monitors were pathetic to be honest.
You…they were fuzzy, looked like they were using old technology as far as…I mean, we have the most clearest televisions created, you know, in the world now and these were, you know, probably from the 60s. You’re looking at all these multiple cameras, screen shots put together of people opening ballots, but you could not even see at all, or witness anything if anything was…any misdoing or anything going wrong. It was very discouraging on my part. I was very much looking forward to being a part of that that day and representing myself and Pennsylvanians in a fair election, and I was I guess discouraged about it. I love this country and I love Pennsylvania. I was not born and raised in Pennsylvania, but I have been here for 30 years and it is very important to me that this election be fair and thank you again for having me.
Leah Hoops: First and foremost – excuse me – my name is Leah Hoops. I’m from Delaware County, Pennsylvania. I was a poll watcher on the day of election, and I was also present at the counting center in Chester, Pennsylvania. So first and foremost, thank you to this committee and all those involved and especially Senator Mastriano and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to our fearless and brave President, thank you for being our shield and putting us first and I am forever grateful. It is an absolute honor to be a part of this hearing and to finally have an opportunity to speak about what took place in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. I feel as an American that is my duty to help protect the integrity of our elections, not just for me but for every American. There are many who have lost life and limb for my right to vote. I want to give a brief introduction and history of how I got involved in this election four years ago. Donald trump came down an escalator and I knew that he was here to take back our country. I was born and raised in Delaware County in a conservative home. I was taught from an early age to love thy neighbor, defend your country and by all means always speak the truth.
I took those values throughout my life and applied them in every avenue possible. Which brings me up to the present, and about 18 months ago I became a volunteer and assisted with a campaign for a magisterial judge. In that process I was approached by my current chairman and became an appointed committee woman for the Bethel Township Republican Party. In conjunction with my committee position I also started volunteering for the Trump campaign, registering voters, and assisting with events. During this time I started a watchdog group and reached out to the Thomas More Society. Now associates, we’ve been focusing our efforts in election integrity. Our greatest efforts have been following closely the newly elected and completely Democrat-run Delaware County Council and the Democrat majority election board. This also includes any and all contractors, support staff and any key players involved. What we found was actually concerning. Not only was private grant money used for the from the Center for Tech and Life owned by Google and Mark Zuckerberg, but pop-up voter sites were also approved.
These pop-up voter sites were placed in heavily Democrat cities including Chester and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, in which case the grant money from the CTCL was used to pay for electioneering. It was literally a one-stop shop. Walk in, apply get your ballots, submit and you were out the door. But where this didn’t take place was in heavily Republican and Independent areas. Let’s also make note that the voting machine warehouse supervisor is a Bernie Sanders delegate, who is also solely responsible for every scanner, machine v-card and all machines with absolutely zero experience in this area. Sorry, I forgot where I was. Okay, so the real story is the 2.1 million dollars spent to move the counting center from the courthouse in [inaudible 50:21], Pennsylvania, which has been something that has been done for decades to the wharf in Chester, Pennsylvania. Let me explain to you the layout of the counting center. It is in the middle of a huge parking lot which sits back on Seaport Drive, next to loading docks. It has multi-million-dollar connections to the company Power HRG and Subaru park soccer stadium. The counting center was on the first floor in which there were multiple places to bring in ballots in and out of elevators and many rooms in which workers had access.
I was there for three straight days. What became of concern was the back room which had no observers, no line of sight or transparency into the process. There was no cooperation, complete resistance from election night and every day after. It took until our lawyer got an injunction to get into that back room in which pre-canvassing was transpiring. Even with an injunction – which was a joke – we were granted five minutes every two hours. And the set-up was sitting in a chair twenty feet from any physical ballot. I truly wish I had enough time today to recreate what I witnessed and felt during those moments, but we did not gather here today just for me and my experience but rather a collection of experiences from Americans like myself. What I hope to achieve is for the public to understand is what we is that we have stuck our necks out, have been intimidated, threatened, bullied, have spent countless hours away from our families, friends, and jobs. We have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury which should be consideration enough to know that this is a very serious issue. I’m here for one thing only and that is to speak the truth. This is not about party.
This is about my country. Every American deserves transparency, truth and be able to question those in power without fear of intimidation, bullying or backlash. I hope this committee takes action if needed and justice will be swift to anyone involved in fraudulent activity. The republic is angry, disgruntled, tired, beaten up and ready to defend this country [applause]. Thank you. Without election integrity, we are just another banana republic. I thank you again for your time, efforts and service and it is an honor to be here and to be part of a historical moment. Thank you.
Stenstrom: It’s a tough group to follow. My name is Gregory Stenstrom. I’m from Delaware County. I’m a father, a family man. I was a former Commanding Officer and Executive officer in the navy. I’m a veteran of foreign wars. I’m the CEO of my own private company. I’m a data scientist. I’m a forensic computer scientist. I’m an expert in security and fraud. Leah had recruited me for this election, and I was glad I…thank you for that. So for the first part of the day, I was a poll watcher in the city of Chester. And I was with just another former US marine officer and the two of us were the only GOP poll watchers in the city of Chester, which is about 40,000 people. Because of the consolidation for COVID, there were seven polls we were allowed, you know, that we were able to make it to in 22 precincts. What we saw out there was pretty orderly and exciting. People were excited about…one of the things we saw out in the field was that quite a few people had done mail-in ballots. So they came in and they hadn’t been updated in the Delaware County database yet. So they would come in and say, you know, the database is not showing me on the database.
I’d like to vote. So one of the processes was to give them a provisional ballot. And then they would vote provisionally and then later on their vote would be sorted out. That didn’t happen. I observed, and the gentleman that was with me observed seven different polls where the people were given a regular ballot, so they cast a vote and put it in. You know, we let it happen a few times. You know, we didn’t jump all over them, you know, it happened a couple of times. We went up…in all cases the election judges were very forthcoming, very polite, they apologized and they said they couldn’t do it, but that somewhat spurred me to go down to the counting center, which Leah described, it’s on the Seaport Ave, it’s a remote building. Not much around it, and I wanted to take a look. All day long I had been told that there were 10 to 20 GOP poll watchers down there and that everything was well in hand and out of curiosity I decided to go down. I arrived at six o’clock with four other gentlemen, again, former military and some good citizens from Delaware County. And we weren’t allowed to get in until eleven o’clock at night and we had to get some legal help to get us in.
So it took us five hours to get upstairs. After that, you know, what I saw, I really think the crux of this in Delaware County, as an expert in this, I think it’s impossible to verify the validity of about 100,000 to 120,000 votes. Now, Delaware County has got 425,000 registered voters. Approximately 300,000 of them voted. I don’t know what the exact number ended up. Mayor Giuliani had nailed that number, but of that number, over 100,000 are in question in my mind. What I saw as a forensics expert was an election process that was forensically destructive in the manner it was conducted, with the envelopes being separated from the ballots and gone to the other side of the room. The problem with that from being forensically destructive is that when you go to do a recount, okay, the machines did a pretty good job of recounting so if I have 120,000 mail-in ballots at one side of the room and envelopes at the other side of the room, it’s still going to come out 102,000 votes for Vice President Biden and 18,000 votes for President Trump. I don’t care how many times you recount those votes, you know, the ballot’s going to come out the same every time.
So the notion of a recount in a forensically destructive process doesn’t work very well. What I saw there was a chain of custody in all cases that was broken. It was broken for the mail-in ballots, the drop box ballots, the election day USB v-card flash drives. In all cases the chain of custody and the procedures that were defined by the Delaware County Board of Elections in election process review, were all…they didn’t follow on. I couldn’t even redline this multi-page document because the entire document would be…they didn’t follow any of the procedures. So I personally observed USB v-cards being uploaded to the voting machines by the voting machine warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions. I saw this personally. I brought it to the attention of the Deputy Sheriff who was there stationed, who was a senior law enforcement officer. And I brought it to the attention of the Clerk of Elections. I brought it to their attention. I objected and I said this person is not being observed he’s not part of the process that I can see and he’s walking in with baggies which we have pictures of and it was submitted in our affidavits and he was sticking these USBs into the machines.
So I personally witnessed that happen over 24 times. We have multiple other witnesses to start, including Democrat poll watchers, and I was told the next day by the solicitors – well actually not the solicitor – but the attorney that we had secured, that they said every election they leave a couple of USBs in the voting machines and they’re brought back and generally the warehouse manager comes over and puts them in. So…and talking to US Attorney General McSwain and other law enforcement officers, I found out that was not the case, that generally, you know, more than two is unusual. So they denied they did it, but as of today 47 USB v-cards are missing. And they’re nowhere to be found. So I was told personally that these 24 to 30 cards that were uploaded weren’t there. Those cards, I demanded that – they didn’t update the vote live time – they only updated it about once every two or three hours. I demanded they updated the vote so I could see what the result was, and it was 50,000 votes. And I think as a computer scientist, an American and a patriot, it doesn’t matter who those 50,000 votes were.
I’ll tell you they were for Vice President Biden, but what was shocking to me as an American, as someone who has gone to sea, gone to war, that that could even happen. So several other things that came up was…on Thursday, it took us three days for them to obey the court order that I secured with Leah’s help and the help of the Thomas More society, who we thank. Incredibly good patriots. They got us in there. They got the order for us to get in and look at the back offices – which were locked – for five minutes every two hours. I was the first one allowed to go in at 1:30 on Thursday and then again at 3:30 for five minutes. The County Solicitor had a stopwatch. On the first time I was not allowed to touch anything. The second time I did. What I observed in the locked room in the back office was 70,000 unopened mail-in ballots. They were in boxes of 500, stacked in neatly. The gentleman that came in with me was a Democrat poll watcher, is a forensic pathologist, a very detailed, very dedicated man and he took meticulous notes as well. And I verified with him, are you seeing what I’m seeing?
We both agreed as GOP poll watchers and a Democrat poll watcher that we had witnessed 60 to 70,000 – we had a little bit of a disagreement there – the problem with that was by that time, the mail-in ballots had already been counted. So 120,000 mail-in ballots had already been counted, posted, and done. So my question is, where did the 70,000 ballots go? And nobody knows. We have a picture in here of a large number of boxes that I took that were filled with what appeared to be ballots sitting by the blue crest machine. They were there for about three hours and then they disappeared. I thought it notable when I watched it the first, when they were taking the ballots up and down. I said, I am an expert in fraud. I saw the ballots going up multiple elevators and racks and I think a lot of well-meaning people and a lot of honest people were there, doing that. They were trying to participate in the process, and I would say that 99 percent of the people there…the way the process was designed, I believe that people thought it was a non-fraudulent process. I heard that said many times. I was…you know, I said there’s no fraud going on here.
He said, well I’m not…you know, I didn’t even bring that up, but I think people saw what they wanted to see, and they saw what was intended for them to see. I called it at one point, Kabuki theatre. I said it was all designed for us to see it, it was entertaining. There were cameras on it. When we finally got into the back room where the votes were being ingested, as a data scientist, I want to see where the data’s coming in. And I wanted to know the universe of the votes. Well, the universe of the votes was only supposed to be 120,000 mail-in ballots. We were told there were 6,000 ballots remaining, so I said okay, we have a universe of 126,000 votes. And then when I get back there, the universe wasn’t 126,000 votes. The universe was 200,000 votes. So that’s a problem. I think the last thing I wanted…a couple of other things is the blue crest sorter machine was only manned by one person. You know, people ask me all the time, how do people commit crimes? I know there’s a lot of theories here and I always look for the simplest thing. Stuff that…you know, sticking USB sticks in, putting ballots in. Very simple thing. Only takes a couple of people.
It doesn’t take a big conspiracy. I think people look at things and they use inflammatory words, and you know like fraud and so forth. As a forensic computer scientist, my interest is in the data. Where did it go? Where did the spoilage go? How did the data come in and go out of the system? So I think as a scientist, we need to look at that, we need to audit that. What was really upsetting to me and the most upsetting was I had spoken to multiple law enforcement agencies and literally begged multiple law enforcement agencies. They said, go in and it’s in order to prove, you know, prove that nothing’s happening you can either exonerate yourselves in the process or refute what I’m saying. Please, it’s very simple process. Just go get the forensic evidence from the computers. It’s a simple process. You turn the computer off. It’s non-destructive. It takes moments, maybe half an hour, 20 minutes to do it properly and collect the evidence. You open the computer up, you take a device called a bit blocker. You put it in the hard drive. It’s done under the observation of law enforcement officers. They take a forensic image of the drive, put it all back together.
It wouldn’t have taken more than an hour to image all five machines. That was never done, despite my objections, and that was three weeks ago. Lastly, when they said, well, we’ve got all the forensic records and so forth we just learned two days ago that virtually all chain of custody logs, records, yellow sheets, everything was gone. All forensic evidence, all custody seats in Delaware County are gone. They had a signing party where they sat down, and poll workers were invited back to recreate those logs and our understanding as of today was that they were unsuccessful in getting them all. So we have a situation where we have 100,000 ballots to 120,000 ballots both mail-in and USB. They’re in question. Now, there’s no cure for this. There’s no remedy for this. As a home is a home charter, we could have a re-election in Delaware County for our own representatives within our own town, but there is no cure for the President of the United States. And I don’t believe as a citizen and an observer to this that anybody could certify that vote in any good conscience. And if the Democrats that were part of this process, you know, had done things, followed their own procedures, which they created almost unilaterally, we would be in a situation where they could exonerate themselves and they could say Mr Stenstrom, you’ve been misinformed.
We have evidence here that refutes what you say. But that’s not the case. They can’t do that. So I say, if you can’t certify that vote and you can’t certify 100,000 votes out of 300,000, then you can’t certify Delaware County. And I’m done and thank you for your time and patience [applause].
Argall: Thank you all. To this panel, before I have Senator Mastriano introduce the next 15-minute panel, I want to note that we’ve also been joined on Zoom by Representative Kathy Rapp from North-western Pennsylvania. Doug.
Mastriano: Thank you panellists. If you can stay in the area, we’re going to bring up the next group here. We’re going to save questions and answers for the end. Mr Mayor, I understand my list might not be synchronized. I’m going to ask you to introduce the next folks coming up to testify. If you could pass the mic to the mayor, somebody? Thank you, Walt.
Rudy Giuliani: We could call up four more witnesses like this, or we could now put on the statistical expert who could explain some of this and then put on the additional…either way you prefer.
Mastriano: [Inaudible 08:15].
Rudy Giuliani: Okay, then we’ll call Colonel Waldron. And if you don’t mind, if I can interrupt and ask him a few questions I can probably get it directed…it’s good for me to do that ’cause I don’t understand it so… I’m only kidding. Colonel, please introduce yourself.
Waldron: Good afternoon, senator. Colonel and gentlemen, ladies…my name is Phil Waldron. I’m a retired army colonel, 30 years. I spent the first half of my career just like Colonel Mastriano here as a cavalry officer, conducting armed reconnaissance, counter reconnaissance, last half of my career spent in information warfare as a psychological operations officer and information operations officer. Conducted computer network operations, electronic warfare, special electronic warfare, deception, counter deception and opsec. And a couple other specialties. Ah. You still got stets in his purse. So I spent all of my time as an operations officer. My perspective, looking at this problem set is how to break in, how to break it, how to destroy it, how to manipulate it. And my team has been researching this specific issue since August, but we’re working with another team that’s been intently working on this problem set – the voting machine manipulation – for two years, since the Ted Cruz and Beto race in Texas in 2018. And the Kentucky Governor’s race where there were significant anomalies observed.
And I like to add that there are many, many more teams like ours, small teams that are joined in this fight and they’re throwing the flag left and right, so there’s a lot of folks who are recognizing anomalies. The voting systems in the US and in Pennsylvania were built to be manipulated. They’ve been used in elections around the world and stolen elections around the world in Venezuela, Italy, Argentina, Singapore, Bolivia, as close as two weeks ago. The Philadelphia uses ES & S, Pittsburgh uses Dominion, other counties in Pennsylvania use Dominion and other systems, so what’s the real deal? So all these election systems have a common DNA. SGO Smartmatic sold Sequoia voting systems to Dominion in 2010, and then the [inaudible 01:11:00] company spun off Premier Election Systems to Dominion as a result of an anti-trust suit. So the bottom line is that these systems have similar code and similar functions and just so you know, I know there have been statements to the contrary but I personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first-hand knowledge of Hugo Chavez’s family members who told him not to worry about the populist threat against Maduro’s election in Venezuela, quote-unquote, that it was guaranteed their father invested the money to build that SGO voting machine system.
So I have no reason to doubt this gentleman. He’s sworn an affidavit to this effect. But that’s the root of the SGO voting machines. So these systems are not what you’ve been told. They are connected to the internet and servers outside of the US. They’re connected from top to the bottom and in the middle. There is no transparency as our previous witnesses mentioned as to how the voter information is processed, how and where it’s stored. The voting record is able to be modified and / or deleted by operators, administrators, and outside threats. Operators can assign votes for write-in ballots, blank ballots, or error ballots in large numbers so that they can be directed toward one candidate or another at the operator’s or supervisor’s discretion. And many experts have published how easily these machines can be hacked to manipulate votes. As a matter of fact, one of our white hat hackers previously discovered a malware that’s present on the servers that captures every login and every password of every operator down to the precinct level that logs into one of these systems. That’s just like giving the password to your bank account out, putting it on the dark web.
It’s not going to be there very long. And just so…you probably are all aware on 30th September an election storage facility was robbed in your state. 30 USB devices were stolen and a laptop. Those USB devices more than likely had encryption devices and you’ve just heard another previous witness talk about the non-standard use of the USB storage devices. So these systems in a nutshell allow authorized and unauthorized users to cancel votes, shift votes, preload votes, vote blank ballots all in real time and in large numbers. They’re connected from the top to the bottom. So one bad actor or a team of bad actors can have equally negative inputs. It’s been described by another person in another state that we’re working with, just like the lotto. Whoever organizes the lotto is always going to win. It’s controlling the numbers and it’s controlling the margins. Our experts and other academics believe that up to 1.2 million Pennsylvania votes could have been altered or fraudulent. This is what we discovered in the last 22 days. Really only a detailed, forensic analysis of the actual machines and software will truly show how many Pennsylvania citizens have had their civil rights violated.
So to use these type of machines with little or no audit trails, little or no transparency of how the votes are processed, where they go, where they’re stored, will never leave the public satisfied that we truly have a representative democracy. I’d like to correct something the Mayor said. I am not a statistician. I’m a combat officer and I didn’t do well in math. But I can understand the numbers that he put out earlier. I want to share with you one chart. I believe it’s in your package. So what our team has done is focused on the spike anomalies. And these are events where a numerical amount of votes are processed in a time period that’s not feasible or mechanically possible under normal circumstances. I believe that Greg Stenstrom mentioned earlier the processing of these ballots through machines. There’s a manufacturer specified rate of speed that a number of ballots can be imaged and processed. These spike anomalies in this chart really show where for us to look forensically to actually determine what happened with these votes. Our team has looked at these systems and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process in the issue, whether it’s mail-in ballot manipulations.
They can scan and allocate blank votes where there was 70,000 votes left in the back room. There’s just lots of ways to interdict these systems. So with that, I’ll answer any potential questions.
Mastriano: Thank you, next panel please?
Rudy Giuliano: Can I just ask him to clarify one or two things? When we look at this Pennsylvania fixing the vote chart that they all have, could you explain at the very beginning, what that line means, Biden injection?
Waldron: So at the very beginning of the chart, where there’s a circle, it says on election day. What that indicates is there is a spike in loaded votes, 337,000 plus or minus of some votes that were added in there in one big batch. So that was an anomaly in the reporting. Normally, you would expect to see a smooth curve going up, none of these big spikes. That’s kind of what Greg was talking about, the anomalies of loading and uploading those votes. So that big spike that occurs there is a prime indicator of fraudulent voting.
Rudy Giuliani: And that’s 604,000 votes in 90 minutes, is that right?
Waldron: Correct this is 337,000 votes in that…
Rudy Guiliani: …in that period of time?
Rudy Guiliani: And when you look at this entire curve, with all these spikes, can you calculate how how much of a vote that accounted for for Biden and how much for Trump?
Waldron: Close to 600,000. I think our figures are about 570 some odd thousand that all those spikes represented over time.
Rudy Giuliani: For Biden?
Rudy Guiliani: And how much for Trump?
Waldron: I think it was a little over 3,200 [crowd noise].
Rudy Giuliani: Now, just to go back to your original document, this one pager that they all have, mail-in ballots counted without being observed. Those are the ballots we were talking about that were not observed in Allegheny County and in Philadelphia?
Rudy Guiliani: Is that right? 682 770. Now, this is the part that is a mystery. Mail-in ballots sent out, 1,823 148, but when you go to the count of the final count of the vote there are 2,589,242 mail-in ballots. What happened? How do you account for the 700,000 mail-in ballots that appeared from nowhere?
Waldron: So our cyber team uses white hat hacking techniques. They gather a lot of public publicly available information and that information was from the Secretary of State’s website. That website has been updated as late as 11:16 this morning with provisional and mail-in ballots, so those numbers are still changing. They changed last night, so it’s a continual target.
Rudy Giuliani: This is 22 days after the election.
Waldron: That number the 2.5 million number is no longer on the website.
Rudy Giuliani: It’s just been taken off?
Waldron: It’s not there.
Rudy Giuliani: Is there any explanation for why it’s been taken off?
Waldron: There’s no annotations.
Rudy Giuliani: But the…has there been a change made in the 2,589,242 mail-in votes that have been counted in the total vote?
Waldron: I’d have to check the Secretary of State’s website as a…
Rudy Giuliani: And could you also check and see, is there any change in the 1,823,148 ballots that was sent out?
Waldron: The mail out ballots number seems to be holding steady.
Rudy Giuliani: And was there any other method of producing ballots other than sending them out?
Waldron: Not that we’re aware of, unless as previous witnesses of testimony that…the potential for multiple ballot counts. So ballots could have been [voices overlap 01:20:31].
Rudy Giuliani: Have you ever gotten a chance to examine any of these ballots?
Waldron: No, that would be part of the forensic process. One suggestion, whoever does the analysis is using paper and ink analysis, with a micro photo spectrometer. That would analyze the ink on those ballots to see if they were mass produced.
Rudy Giuliani: So in addition to the 682,770 ballots that were entered without a single inspection of any kind, there also appear to be something like 700,000 mail-in ballots that were never sent out that were counted.
Waldron: There are noted discrepancies in the Secretary…
Rudy Giuliani: Pretty big discrepancies.
Waldron: Yes, sir.
Rudy Giuliani: And that’s been there f…
Mastriano: Thank you. We do have to press on to the next panel. Since we have a lot of questions still pending here. Mr Mayor, could you introduce the next panellist?
Rudy Giuliani: So now we have Jane Winters, Gary Feldman who’s going to be on a Zoom. Is he here? Well, then have him come up.
Mastriano: Please, please come up as you’re called.
Rudy Giuliani: I believe Charles Nudo, N-u-d-o, and David Shistokis. I think I have them all. I think I have them all Mr Chairman.
Senator Argall: Yeah, thank you gentlemen. We’ll start with the men physically in the room here with your testimony and then go to the Zoom after that, so please…
Gary Feldman: Thank you Senator. My name is Gary Feldman. I am a resident and voter and of Philadelphia City and County. I’m registered as a Republican. I have been involved with foot off of republican politics for over 20 years now. I’ve had watcher certificates and on this past November 3rd 2020, I was issued a watcher certificate to be the watcher for President Donald Trump. This is the watcher certificate that I was given, and it is issued for President Donald Trump to me. These watcher certificates, I’m not sure the exact year – I’m going to say about 2002 or 2003 – are now for Countywide, so everywhere in the County, the watcher certificate is good for, so Philadelphia is a City and County, so this watcher’s certificate which reads: this certificate authorize the individual to watch in any ward or division in Philadelphia. And that’s like, the top line. If you want to see the watch certificate, I’ll gladly bring it up. So anyway, I was in my vehicle kind of like, volunteering for the President with an attorney and he was monitoring any kind of problems that could happen in Philadelphia.
His name was Will Chamberlain and he was pretty good on Twitter and other social media stuff, so we got a word that they were not letting Republican watchers in the polling places in South Philly, so we went to a place which happened to be a funeral parlor, where they were doing the election and I walked in with the watcher certificate in both hands to make sure that they wouldn’t snag it out of my hand. They immediately wanted me to identify myself. One of the problems that happens is the Republican watcher certificates are this gold orange color, where the Democrats are like a light blue. I’ve never really seen one, but I heard they’re light blue, so they know right away that were Republicans coming in there to watch. So two poll workers – I don’t know who they were – they were wearing masks and everything. I produced a certificate, and she starts saying it’s not good here. And I’m like, it is, and I said please read the top line. The gentleman that was with her said, would you like to go outside and talk about this? You know, I was not looking for a confrontation. And the other thing is too is I did have my bandana on.
They had their face shield, but they weren’t practicing fake social distancing, they were right on top of me. So we did step outside because he wanted to step outside. Will Chamberlain is not a Philadelphia resident, so he’s not issued a Philadelphia watcher certificate and he proceeded to take a video of me having a confrontation on the street with these two. I don’t know who they were. I don’t know if they were poll workers, you know, they never identified who they were. And the video which was released to the public was a little over 30 seconds on Twitter and it already has 3.8 million hits on Will’s Twitter page. There is a complete video and it’s on my phone and I know I made it available to the senators. It’s over a minute, about what happened on the street. I tried to explain this watcher’s certificate is for the city of Philadelphia, you’re in the city of Philadelphia and you have to let me observe. I’m the eyes and ears of the President of the United States, and they wouldn’t allow it.
Dave Shistokis: Thank you for the opportunity to be…excuse me be here today. Oh, sure.
Gary Feldman: Yeah, I just want to add another thing that’s really kind of crucial. When this happened, the fact checkers, group, organization…I don’t know what they are started to put disclaimers on the video. The fact checkers said they contacted me. Fact checkers never contacted me. Fact checkers said that it was a misunderstanding. They said the Commissioner’s Office tried contacting me. They used the name Kevin Feely from the Commissioner’s Office. I don’t know who Kevin Feely is. Nobody from fact checkers called me. I don’t know if they have my phone number. And the Commissioner’s office did nothing to follow up on any of this. I did see Commissioner Al Schmidt when we were doing the canvassing, but we didn’t mention anything about what happened that day.
Dave Shistokis: Good afternoon. I’m Dave Shistokis. I’m an attorney, a licensed practice law in Illinois and Florida. Some time ago I was a Cook County Assistant State’s attorney prosecutor and during that time I actually did election law enforcement during the course of that time including seeing to it that people had appropriate access and precinct openings and closings that machines were zeroed out. Since that time I’ve either been a candidate or a campaigner in over 10 other individual elections and in 2016 I actually worked as a volunteer for the Trump / Rubio campaign in Broward County, Florida. Discovered them opening mail-in ballots in a locked room. Before that was all said and done, we actually had a Broward County judge monitoring everybody’s access. He was actually on-site monitoring everybody’s access to see to it that that could happen. See to it that everybody would have appropriate access. Currently, I am lead counsel in conjunction with Judicial Watch in a suit called Illinois Conservative Union versus the Illinois State Board of Elections for violations of the board in terms of the National Voter Registration Act. Given that kind of background to give you some idea of where I’m coming from on this subject.
On October 24th this year I came to Pittsburgh as a volunteer with Lawyers for Trump and I was asked to organize folks to do monitoring of the pre-canvas activities, during the course of the next week, about myself with some other volunteers, made over 500 phone calls. We recruited 50 individuals that were willing to come and canvas or come and monitor the pre-canvas and along with 25 other out-of-state lawyer volunteers. We had organized all this because of course we had 19…in Allegheny County there were 19 Republicans on the ballot and so we were able to have credentials through the RCAC for 19 watchers at any given moment. So we had to organize them. So we organized everybody during the course of time and they had given us credentials in advance and then two days before the election on…well, the Friday before the election, we got a call from the Electoral Board and said, oh, by the way, you need to submit everybody’s credentials in advance. And you need to have everybody’s signatures on the credentials that you sign in advance. And of course, we’d already…had put together a team of 70. We’d allocated them four hours of time over…in four-hour shifts to be able to monitor through the course of the whole period of time.
And then over the next three days we scrambled like heck to try and get signatures from the various volunteers and other council that were assisting us. Needless to say we lost about 20, 25 folks that we were unable to get the credentials to in advance and get the signatures back and forth and all the things necessary to do that. So I just wanted to mention that you’re hearing about huge global issues, but it goes down to the petty as well in terms of interfering with his access and interfering with changing rules. I know Secretary [inaudible 01:31:22] changed some huge rules, but the local boards – day in and day out – were changing rules as well to make the monitoring process next to next to impossible. At any rate we did that and then we wound up…I went with a group at about 6:45 on election day to 901 Pennsylvania Avenue in Allegheny County where they were doing the pre-canvas. And at the at the time when we arrived, we were herded into what best known as the corral. I’m sure you’ve kind of seen or heard about those things. It was a fenced in area that was about…the fence was maybe two and a half three feet high.
Closest anybody could get to make any observations was maybe 15, 20 feet from the closest ballot processor to the…maybe 150 feet ’cause we were in about a 20,000 square foot area where the biggest activity was taking place. But I would mention that the mail-in ballots were coming into that room already sliced open at the top. We have no idea when or where the slicing took place, where the opening took place, or what was in fact in inside those ballots, inside those mail-in envelopes. At that point in time, folks were then separating the mail-in ballot from the secrecy envelope. You could see that, you know, that’s exactly what they’re doing. They’d only put one on the side and one on the other side. And then they’d take them and put them someplace and I have no idea, and then the secrecy envelopes would go to another slicing machine and that’d be sliced open at that point, then the ballots would come back and they’d be divided from the secrecy envelopes. We had really no concept of what was going on. In the room next door there was a smaller room around the corner that you had to leave the 20,000 square foot room. There was one about 7,500 square feet.
And in that room, there was a machine, and the machine would be apparently sorting things by the barcodes. And then eventually somehow or other people would come in with big arm loads of ballots from the other room, apparently with no provenance, no explanation of where they came from. And here’s an interesting thing that you guys might consider when you’re doing this in the future. One of the biggest bottlenecks would take place at this point in time because all these ballots came in folded, tri-folded, right? And all the ballots had to be flattened. And so they would take the ballots and put them under big stacks of…reams and reams of paper to flatten them out and then there’d be workers kneading the ballots to try and make them so that they could go through the machines. And when everybody’s saying, well you haven’t counted anything for, you know, x number of hours and they said, well, we’re trying to flatten the ballots. Yeah, no it just…it was absurd and obscene. So at any rate, that was that and when everybody was waiting, that’s what was going on, they’re flattening the ballots for the most part. And then there was about six machines where they were feeding the ballots.
And while they had six machines feeding the ballots, as they would go in, two or three would kick out to a different tray than the other tray and workers sometimes would take the ones that weren’t kicked out and put them in a stack and then sometimes he’d run all of them through again and sometimes run two or three. We never had any idea if they were zeroing out a machine, what they were doing, I asked the County solicitor who was there, I said, what’s going on? He told me that this was a Pitney Bowes representative, working there that had been sworn in as a County representative and that sometimes the ballot machine doesn’t count those things. And then so he runs them through and but there was absolutely no provenance to what was going on in the counting machines. I have no idea because of course they would just take stacks of ballots that had been sitting under reams of paper trying to be flattened and then run them through the machine. So we have no idea about that. And so at one point I asked the County solicitor. I said, can you describe for me the journey of a ballot from the time it hits the door to the time that it’s counted?
Where does it go? what’s the process, et cetera? I had a short answer, no. I then asked him, I said, can you give me any written protocol about what is supposed to happen? It hits the door, then it goes to a machine, theoretically sorted by barcodes from what I understood from someone else so that if there’s a challenge in advance of the election they know where to look because of course at 5 pm on the Friday before elections you can challenge things for people having died and a few other reasons. But then I asked, I said, is there any written protocol for that? And he said, no. We have no written protocol for what we’re doing here. So he answered…he’s supposed to be the one giving legal advice to people on how to legally handle ballots and he tells me that he doesn’t know how they’re handled and he tells me that there is no written protocol on how they are supposed to be handled. So I might suggest that there was just literally no way to change. I mean there was no way to challenge. There was no way to look at those ballots. And I would say in my electoral experience, one of the things that legitimizes elections is the ability of not a disinterested third party to review what the process is but actually an adversarial third party to review what the process is.
And this was completely and utterly absent. I had about 25 other affidavits from other folks that had joined me during the time, that had been part of this that describe essentially the same thing over there in Allegheny County. Most of whom were attorneys and had been versed on the comings and goings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which I might suggest ultimately the last decision [inaudible 01:38:07] canvassing. When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately said that it doesn’t matter how far you’re away from the ballots because you don’t have the right to challenge anything anyway, I read the opinion and I said to myself, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just called off elections in the state of Pennsylvania. And I would suggest that the remedy for what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does lies with the distinguished legislators that are before me. But the fact is if there is no opportunity for anybody to look at them and the court has the temerity to say, it doesn’t matter if you come in or not, it doesn’t matter how far you are, because even if you’re there you don’t have any right to do anything.
Mastriano: If you could summarize sir. We are running out of time.
Dave Shistokis: Yes, I’m sorry. I apologize for being an attorney [laughter]. No, I apologize Senator. Yeah, I’ll summarize in one thing. One of the guarantees in the United States constitution is that in fact every state shall have a Republican form of government. And I would suggest to you if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determines that they’re going to run the state and allow the local election authorities to essentially appoint winners, the state of Pennsylvania no longer meets that guarantee as a Republican form of government, thank you.
Mastriano: Thank you sir [applause]. If we could go to our two witnesses on Zoom now. You can come forth. And go ahead and start when you’re ready.
Preate Havey: Hi, my name is Elizabeth Preate Havey. I am an attorney and a resident of Montgomery County and the Chair of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. Thank you, senators, and Mayor Giuliani, for providing me the opportunity to speak. After the primary, our committee prepared and provided to the PA legislative leaders and members of the Montgomery County staff in charge of the election a 30-page report of the mail-in ballot and election day problems and irregularities we experienced in Montgomery County. We made detailed recommendations for changes with the hope that the general election would be smoother. Unfortunately, that was not the case. There are a number of issues that evidence a total lack of transparency regarding the handling of the General Election in Montgomery County. First, the Montgomery County Republican Committee was not provided meaningful view of the mail-in ballots at any time despite our requests. Second, we were not provided with regular, detailed information about the mail-in ballots over the course of the election despite our requests. Third, we still lack complete and detailed information about these ballots despite our written requests.
We were provided our first opportunity to view and learn about the canvassing site on Sunday November 1st, just two days prior to the election. At that visit, the Chief Operating Officer of the County showed us the room where the canvas was to take place. To our shock, we were told we could not directly check the mail-in ballots. After some significant pushback by me, the County agreed to allow two watchers inside the room, but they were never able to see the ballots up close. Again, there was no meaningful observation of the ballots and absolutely no check of the ballots by anyone other than the County staff – which is all run by the Democrats – as to whether or not these ballots met election code criteria. At the most basic level, we were not even able to check to see if a voter [inaudible 01:42:09] twice or if a voter was deceased. And with the removal of the signature being a check for existing voters, there was no way to protect against someone fraudulently voting for a registered voter. In addition to having no meaningful observation or review of over 200,000 mail-in ballots, we were not provided with the change in rules by the County to allow the curing of mail-in ballots in a timely manner.
On Thursday October 29th, I received an email from Frank Dean who ran the election for the County with a list of ballots with what they described as defects, and if the voter had been contacted by the County to cure the defect. At the tour of the County – the canvas – on November 1, we were shown bundled mail-in ballots divided by precinct, which the County identified as having a defect and explained that those individuals had not cured these ballots as of November 1st. The County did not provide the Montgomery County Republican Committee with an opportunity to have an authorized representative present in what was effectively the pre-canvas – a legal term, pre-canvas – of the ballots when it reviewed and contacted voters about their defective mail-in ballots. After immediate investigation it was clear that other counties across Pennsylvania were not allowing this illegal pre-canvassing to take place. In particular our neighboring County Berks County, a County that the President won by over eight percent interpreted the law as written and did not contact voters to cure ballots weeks prior to the election as Montgomery County did.
A portion of Berks County and most of Montgomery County share one congressional seat, so voters were not treated equally in these two counties in the same district. Since the election we have received many calls and emails from Republicans with questions about whether their mail-in ballot was counted, expressing concerns that they didn’t request a mail-in ballot but received one anyway, that they were made to vote provisional when they shouldn’t have, that they have great concerns about the efficacy of this election. There is a real disenfranchisement of voters across Montgomery County. Many people will feel their vote did not count. Because we lack the information we need to tell them otherwise and because we were not able to have any meaningful check on mail-in ballots, we cannot provide these concerned voters with the assurance they need that the process was fair and that the election was honest. In addition to the lack of transparency we experienced in Montgomery County, the Kathy Barnett for Congress campaign found with just the minimal information that we’ve been able to obtain that at least 188 deceased people in Montgomery County voted in 2020.
They also found concerning anomalies in the results. For example, more people voted in the small town of Norristown for the very first time than the voters who vote regularly. This occurrence is far outside the norm of what we have seen in past elections. These numbers must be reviewed and analyzed. In fact a full review of the mail-in ballots across the state must be done. In order for this country to have trust in the electoral process, elections must be viewed as open and transparent. Both the Democrats and the Republicans should be provided with the same information throughout the process and there should be meaningful opportunity to observe and object. Not last-minute disclosures and rule changes. This legislature must reform the election law to provide for such transparency all along the mail-in ballot process from start to finish. And people need to feel confident that the same rules apply to each and every voter in every town and in every County in this state. Thank you [applause].
Mastriano: Okay, next member on the Zoom, are you up? Thank you. Do we have contact?
Senator Argall: She’s still on.
Mastriano: Okay, there you are.
Senator Argall: We’re ready.
Mastriano: Please proceed.
Julia Vahey: [Julia Vahey 01:46:11].
? [Inaudible 01:46:12].
Julia Vahey: Hello? Thank you for having me here today. My name is Julia Vahey, and I’m a resident of Montgomery County and the Executive Director of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. I’m here to speak with you today regarding my experience as an observer of the pre-canvas and canvas of the mail-in ballots. In Montgomery County we had over 250,000 mail-in ballots requested for the general election. In the weeks leading up to the election I personally trained over 100 volunteers to inspect and monitor the counting of these ballots to ensure the legitimacy of the vote in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, they were never given this opportunity. On Sunday November 1st during a walk-through of the mail-in ballot facility, we learned that no watchers were permitted to inspect or even see the outside envelope of the ballot. After some significant pushback by our chairman Liz Havey, the County agreed to allow two watchers inside the room, of which I was one. As an observer at the canvas, I was corralled into a small, narrow holding area which was blocked off by tables and plexiglass barriers in the corner of the room.
Due to the room layout and location of the holding area within the room, I only had visibility to the space where ballots were flattened and scanned. This was a huge area, and the closest scanner was roughly six feet away and the farthest approximately 25 yards away. From my position within the holding area I had no visibility or access to the room where ballots were sorted, outside envelopes were inspected and both outside and secrecy envelopes were opened. This space was divided from the scanning room by a large, white wall blocking all visibility to the slicing machines, the blue crest sorter, and the ballot storage room. In my opinion this was a totally separate room and not one room as the County election board argued. During our walk through of the canvas facility on Sunday November 1st, we argued that this was a separate room and was told by the County Chief Operating Officer that we would be able to view this space by security camera footage. The footage from these cameras was streamed to televisions in a conference room on the other end of the building which was approximately a four-minute walk away from where the ballot canvas room was.
The system was not set up on our walk-through day and it was not until I arrived back at the facility on 7 a.m. on election day that I could see the footage was extremely poor quality and you could only see pixelated images of workers moving around the room and had no meaningful visibility of the ballots. Over the last 10 months in my role I’ve spoken to thousands of voters first-hand who have lost faith in the election processes and procedures in Montgomery County and across Pennsylvania as a whole. Today I still lack the information needed to properly inform voters that their vote was in fact counted. I thank you for holding these hearings today and hope that the appropriate legislative changes are made to restore confidence in our elections. Thank you.
Mastriano: Thank you [applause]. Facts are stubborn things and I appreciate you guys laying it out there it does make a difference. Mayor, if you can introduce the final panellists before we go to question and answer time?
Rudy Giuliani: I believe there are two other…
Mastriano: Two more on Zoom?
Rudy Giuliani: Zoom…
Mastriano: Okay, please come forth friends on Zoom when you’re ready.
Charles Nudo: Here we are. We’re here, but we can’t see ourselves. Can you hear us?
Senator Argall: We hear you loud and clear. Please begin.
Charles Nudo: Okay, my name is Charles Nudo. I live in Drums, Pennsylvania. Can you hear me?
Senator Argall: Yes.
Charles Nudo: Can you see me on the screen?
? You’re not on the screen.
Senator Argall: No, but please continue.
Charles Nudo: Okay. Go ahead, my mother…no, we got somebody else.
Mastriano: Let’s go with what we got. Please start.
Charles Nudo: Can you see us?
Senator Argall: We see two ladies.
Charles Nudo: Can you see us?
Mastriano: Yes, we have the two ladies in the screen.
Barbara Salika: My name is Barbara Salika. I went to the voting polls on November the 3rd to vote in person. I waited two hours in line and when I went in, I showed identification and I was taken up to the polling place. This polling man showed me what to do, turned it on and said go ahead. I voted and I printed it out and when I got it and I looked at it trump was not on there. I voted for trump and it wasn’t there. My daughter…I called her over and I said to her, look his vote is gone. I voted for him. So I called a pollster over and he said it’s not supposed to be seen. It’s for privacy. Just put it through the scanner and you’re done. It bothered me. It’s been bothering me since because I voted and was it counted or was it flipped? I don’t know.
Cheryl Nudo: And I’m speaking on my mom’s behalf, also as a witness. My name is Cheryl Nudo. I was there that day. I drove her to the polls. When she got done voting she showed me the printout and she was saying how the President’s name that she voted for was not printed out when all the other delegates that she had voted for were on the printout. Me not knowing – ’cause I had not voted yet – how the printout was supposed to look, we went to the pollster that was there and asked him why the President and Vice President’s name did not print out, when all the other names of the candidates printed out that my mother had voted for. It seemed very strange, but not knowing any better, we asked, well, what is the next step? And he said, oh, I’m sorry, he said that it did not print out because that’s for voters’ privacy, that none of them print out. So we asked him what the next step was, and he said to put it through the scanner, so that’s what we did, and we left, and it seemed very odd. Then I went to where I live in Drums, Pennsylvania, which is about 10 miles south of where my mother voted and I voted no problem, everything printed out just as you know it should, and I scanned it through, so it just seemed very odd and we wanted to report that, that in my mother’s area which was Fairview township, it seemed very odd that it did not print out. Thank you.
Charles Nudo: Okay I’m Charles Nudo and by the way, my mother-in-law is 84 years old. She forgot to mention that. Anyway, my wife then…I’m sorry she’s 80 [laughter]. My wife called me that day and she was distraught and told me everything they just told you. So I go to my polling place around 3:30, four o’clock here in Drums. And when I first walked in, a young gentleman came up to me, started explaining how to vote. And he said, take this stylus make your choices and then print it out with a printer that’s underneath the machine and I thought that’s odd. I’ve been voting since 1992. We never had to print a ballot. And I actually thought it was easier to vote in ‘92 on the World War II surplus voting machines with the curtain. You did your choices, opened the curtain and they went click, and everything went. All of a sudden, we have to print a ballot? So anyway, I’m pretty good with computers. I made my choices. I printed it out. All my choices are on there, from President on down ballot. And he said, now you have to put it in the scanner. And he turned over a sample ballot and pointed at a weird triangle in the corner and smiled at me. I didn’t know what he meant, so I go over to the enter and I’m wondering why scanner works face down when you scan ’cause I have one at home, so I put it in face down or face up.
So he’s already across the room talking to another gentleman that’s about 20 years older than me trying to tell him how to do it. And I said, are these face up or face down? And he just nodded. He didn’t say either way. He just nodded, yes. So I put it in face up. So I don’t even know if it scanned the blank back side or the voting top side. And anyway, I overheard that conversation not wittingly or that I wanted to. A man – I’m 58 – he was about 78, saying, oh, they said to him, now, did he understand, and he said, yeah, I think, but my memory is not too good. And when I walked out of there, I realized it’s total voter suppression. My mother-in-law here did not even get a cell phone ’til last year, has never sat at a computer and keyed anything in in her life. Has no wi-fi or internet service at her house. Neither does my mother. She has a cell phone but it’s a flip type. And these are the people that went by the thousands or millions to our polls and had to go through this system. And I just wanted to point that out and that’s all I have. Thank you.
Mastriano: Thank you.
Senator Argall: Senator Mastriano, before we turn to our next panel, I want to note that Senator Camera Bartolotta has joined us from Southwestern Pennsylvania on Zoom and Senator Bob Mensch from the Southeast.
Mastriano: Thank you Senator. Can we go over to the final Zoom panellists, Mr Mayor? We have more?
Rudy Giuliani: We have [inaudible 01:56:19].
Senator Argall: Should be three more.
Mastriano: Thank you Scott.
Rudy Giuliani: I think we have a surprise guest, Mr Chairman.
? I’m sorry, is it my turn?
Mastriano: Just hold off one second. Just give me a minute.
? Okay, it’s really hard to hear you guys.
? One moment. Are we ready Molly?
Rudy Giuliani: Jenna?
Jenna Ellis: Yes, sir? Mr Chairman, may I introduce…
? Okay. Let them finish their testimony. I’m watching. It’s fantastic. Let them finish their testimony.
Jenna Ellis: He wants to finish.
Mastriano: Okay, please. Can you hear me on Zoom? If you can introduce yourself and proceed?
Winters Yeah, can you hear me?
Mastriano: Yes, we got you loud and clear.
Winters: Okay, my name is Olivia Jane Winters and I’m a professional organizer and a business management consultant and I live in Philadelphia. I actually was asked to be a minority inspector in 36-15 that’s the ward and the division. I was just purely doing this to help my mom out. She’s a ward leader in a different area of the city. I’m actually not a…I’m a registered Democrat and I just wanted to help and make sure it was a fair election. I don’t care who wins. I care that it’s a fair election [applause]. I showed up to the polls at 6:30 in the morning. Immediately I was met with a hostile attitude from all of the people that I had to work with. That would be the Majority Inspector, the poll watcher, the machine operator, and a committee man who was electioneering in the polls. He was wearing shirts and a hat and a mask for who to vote for. We are about like, an hour and a half in in the morning. We have a long line of people. We must have had – I don’t know – 60 people in line in the building snaking around the building and a woman came up and said I’d like to turn in my mail-in ballot so that I can vote in the booth. And the girl who was clerking for me said, well, if you want to turn in your mail-in ballot, we’re going to need to have you fill out this form and the Majority Inspector is going to need to sign the form.
The Majority Inspector had decided in the middle of the morning to go home and was not in the polling place for over 45 minutes. To my understanding, you as the minority as a…I’m sorry, not the Majority Inspector, the Judge of Elections, my apologies, she had gone home and to my understanding the Judge of Elections is not to leave the polling place. So she was out of the building, we needed her to sign this form. The man who was electioneering and was a poll watcher but also a committee man confronted myself and the clerk and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about, anybody can sign the affidavit. Why don’t you stop trying to cause problems? why don’t you shut up? Started getting in my face, cursing at me, telling me that I needed to be quiet, that I didn’t know what I was talking about, and I should just learn to sit down and not say anything, and just let it happen. And my clerk and I said, no, we’re not going to let that happen, that’s ridiculous. It says very clearly in our training and on this sheet that an affidavit needs to be signed by the Judge of Elections if somebody’s going to turn in a mail-in ballot before they can go vote in the booth.
We made her wait. Finally the Judge of Elections came back, not of course before he was threatening me, the Majority Inspector threatened to slap me in the face, and he told me that it was going to become a – quote-unquote – racial issue. I’m not really sure why that would become a racial issue. It has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with following procedure and making sure it’s an honest election. I felt threatened. I called my ward leader. The ward leader then called the Commissioner for Philadelphia, Al Schmidt. Al Schmidt had me call and report that to the DA. And then about an hour and a half after that, the Majority Inspector told me that she wanted to vote because we had a lull in people coming to the polls, so it was pretty quiet, and I looked her name up so that she could sign the book and it said that she needed to remit her mail-in ballot or vote provisionally. She said, oh, I threw that in the trash. And I said, well, then you have to vote provisionally. And the machine operator and the same committee man, slash, poll watcher who was electioneering that I mentioned before got up in my face again, told me that I didn’t belong there, that I needed to shut up, started cursing expletives at me again.
Told me that they were going to allow her to do that and I better be quiet about it. And then they let her go into the polls and vote and she did not vote provisionally at all, she voted…and who knows, maybe she voted twice? Not to mention, it wasn’t until I had actually called our ward leader who had called the Commissioner who had called the DA, that they then sent representatives down to discuss this with me and defend me. I mean I had maybe six men there because I was being threatened in the polling place and the committee man that I mentioned earlier who is threatening me then got his cousin involved who was working the polls as a poll watcher and was also wearing election hearing gear, she got up in my face, demanded to see my credentials then tried to refuse to give them back to me, told me that they were illegitimate minority inspector certificates. They basically told me they were going to call my council rep and he was going to come down and make me leave. And just ridiculous threats. I then testified in a hearing for the city of Philadelphia for them on election day regarding this harassment and meanwhile I had mentioned that until we had the Deputy Sheriff come down and tell us how to actually receive a mail-in ballot and how to vote provisionally, we were not doing it correctly.
The judge of elections was not doing it correctly. And I cannot stress this enough, my brother had the same role as me as a minority inspector in a different polling place and he said they were not doing it correctly either. I don’t think that anybody actually really knew how to receive a mail-in ballot. Most of the books that we had to get your authorized signature, some would have a remit ballot little box that you could click, and others didn’t have that at all. So if somebody came in and remitted a ballot I’d almost have to like, hand write that in just to keep it as honest as possible. There was no place for that. So I don’t see really how they were keeping track of that ’cause you could easily do both, and I mean it happened in front of me. My Majority Inspector definitely voted and then went into the polls and voted again. And unless you have questions, I’m not really sure. I think that’s pretty much what happened.
Senator Argall: Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator Mastriano [applause].
Mastriano: Thank you. If we can have our final Zoom, I guess one or two more? If the next one can come forth. Whenever you’re ready. Okay, are you on? Hello, can you hear me?
Mastriano: Okay, over to you. We can hear you.
Snover: Am I on?
Mastriano: Yes, please begin. You have the floor.
Snover: This is Gloria Lee Snover. I am Chairman of the Northampton County Republican Committee. Northampton County is a Democrat County, where Republicans win elections. I have been involved in the political process in Northampton County for more than 25 years. I’ve worked on campaigns for township supervisor to President of the United States. This year was one of the most vast, complex elections I have ever had to oversee as party County chairman. The complexity was due to the new mail-in ballot system and ever changing rules, the unmanned drop boxes in the general election that we did not have in the primary, also changing the fact that voters could bring their ballot to the polls and vote on the machine and many other new procedures. There was mass confusion regarding the mail-in ballot system. I fielded scores of calls from Northampton County voters and collected incident reports from voters and poll watchers regarding the November 3rd election. The typical calls I would field were, I didn’t ask for a mail-in ballot. Why am I on the mail-in ballot list? I did not get my ballot, what should I do? It’s been weeks. How come my wife got her ballot and I didn’t get one? We applied on the same day.
How can I vote on the machines if I applied for a ballot? Is it safe to put my ballot in the mail? My ballot says it wasn’t received and I turned it in to the election office in person. My ballot says cancelled. What does that mean? I voted in person and it still says not counted. I’ve been on hold with the election office 70 minutes. What do I do? In turn, because of these questions, I had a number of phone calls and emails correspondence with the election office and the County Solicitor before election day, trying to make sure I was disseminating information correctly to the voters volunteers and the campaign. One call turned heated when the registrar threatened to turn me over to the District Attorney for posting a picture of a voter ballot harvesting a large bag of ballots at a Northampton County drop box. It was my opinion the registrar was more concerned we exposed it rather than the fact that it was happening. The most pertinent information I have to offer this committee was my conversations with the election office regarding curing the disqualified naked ballots which they unlawfully pre-campus before election day. They actually told me on the phone early in October they felt them, they held them up to the light, they separated them out in different boxes.
Reflecting back on these three weeks in the experience the major concerns regarding this election are equal protection, were the Democrats and Republicans treated the same? Were they given the same information and opportunity to vote? Did they equally have an opportunity to cure their disqualified ballot? Not in my County. There was no ability to properly witness the canvas of the mail-in ballots or see the actual ballot. Were there signatures? The solicitor told me there is absolutely no law that allows us to see the counting or to see the ballots. To this day, we have no idea what or whose ballots were counted. Another one very strange. There’s a pattern of reactivated old voter rolls that kept recurring on the Sure System. The Sure System is our Pennsylvania voter system. Scores of people that had not voted since the 1990s – more than 22 years ago – were all now reactivated and receiving mail-in ballots. People that didn’t vote for Obama or Hillary were all of a sudden receiving mail-in ballots, setting up the opportunity for fraud on a massive scale that would go undetected because voters who never intended to vote would not know.
The Sure System is not so sure. We also found in Northampton County more than 1, 500 votes where the mail-in ballot was received in the election office on a date before it was even mailed. We have a problem with this election. Thank you for allowing me to share my election experience, and I plead with you to remedy the mail-in ballot process. Thank you.
Mastriano: Thank you for your testimony [applause]. And our last Zoom. Are you there? Can you hear me? And if so, please begin. Is there one more? Nope, that’s it. Okay, I guess a Q&A.
Senator Argall: Let me begin now with questions from our representatives and senators. I believe probably about 30 minutes if we may. Ah. We have one additional witness.
Rudy Giuliani: Commentator.
Senator Argall: Please.
Jenna Ellis: All right. I will introduce to you now Mr President. You are connected [applause].
Donald Trump: Thank you very much. I’ve been watching the hearing. Oh, yeah, it’s on a couple of other great networks, but I really appreciate being asked to speak and I’m in the Oval Office right now and it’s very interesting to see what’s going on and this was an election that we won easily. We won it by a lot [applause]. A big energy official was on this morning on a important show and said there’s no way Trump didn’t win Pennsylvania because the energy industry was all for him. I saw, you know, with my eyes what happened, and he told me horror stories, absolute horror stories. So this was a – very sad to say it – this election was rigged, and we can’t let that happen. We can’t let it happen for our country and this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot and we won all of these swing states by a lot. Anybody watching television the night of the election was saying, wow, I was called by the biggest political people, congratulations sir on a big win. And all of a sudden ballots were dumped all over the place and a lot of horrible things happened and everybody in that room I want to thank all of the people that signed affidavits and all of the speakers, you fantastic people, you’re great patriots.
I want to thank the senators for being there and it’s so important, day before thanksgiving, it really represents somebody between the voter suppression and all of the horrible things that happened to poll watchers. We have poll watcher affidavits piled up to the ceiling. They’re all over. They were treated horribly all over this in all of these swing states. I mean, virtually all of the swing states. And many other things were happening that were horrible, just horrible. But the poll watchers weren’t allowed to watch. They were in many cases whisked out of the room, not only into pens that were 20, 30, 40, 60, 100 feet away, where you couldn’t even see. They were using binoculars. People are reporting that they had to use binoculars and that didn’t work. If you were a republican poll watcher, you were treated like a dog. And the Democrats had no problem, but they were rough. They were they were literally pushed out and there was rough tactics this is what happened here. This is not the United States of America, what happened. And I think everybody knows that that’s why you’re there and that’s why you’re so vehement about it.
We have many, many cases, many, many cases of people walking in…a woman, an elderly woman walks in, looking forward to voting, November 3rd and says, oh good, where would I go about voting? I’m sorry, you’ve already voted. Your ballot is in. I said no, I didn’t vote. I didn’t vote. No, your ballot is in. You’ve already voted. In all cases for Biden, by the way. She said no, no, I want to vote. Nope, your ballot is in. And then they give her a provisional ballot to sign, which goes nowhere. It’s a disgrace that this is happening to our country. We won this election by a lot. We got 74 million votes, and if you would have said 74 million votes the day before the election, every single professional in the business would have said there’s no way of beating that. We got 11 million votes more than we had four years before in 2016 and we got many votes more than Ronald Reagan had when he won 49 states. And nobody would have said we even had a chance of losing. And all you had to do was take a look at the numbers at ten o’clock in the evening, when everybody thought the election was virtually over then very weird things happened.
But they’re not weird to professionals and they’re not weird to Dominion and other people that operate machines and they’re not weird to the people that handle the ballots where they were flooding the market. People were getting two and three and four ballots in their home. People that were dead were signing up for ballots. Not only were they coming in and putting in a ballot, but dead people were requesting ballots. And they were dead for years, and they were requesting ballots. And the whole world is watching us. The whole world is watching the United States of America. And we can’t let them get away with it and we have judges that are afraid to make a decision. We have judges that don’t want to do the same thing. A very good lawyer said, well, sir, I mean, that’s a big statement for a judge to overthrow an election. I said, really? If he got hundreds of thousands of votes more than he was entitled to get through all of the things that I’m listening to right now and you’re just covering a few of them, we have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits of stories that are even worse than the stories I’m hearing.
Why wouldn’t they overturn an election, certainly overturn it in your state, because we have other states that are just as bad. If you look at Michigan with Detroit, you look at the things that happened in Detroit, where you have a voter, but you have more votes than you have voters. You take a look at Detroit, Michigan, you have more votes than you have voters. And then you have two people that don’t want to certify. They don’t want to certify, and they’re harassed violently and they turned off the cameras during the harassment for two hours. And then they said, wow, and they were afraid and they voted and then they went back to sign and they couldn’t do it because they said we can’t do it because this is corrupt, this is horrible, what’s taking place. Think of it. More votes than you have voters, but that was the least of it, they have things that were as bad as that and this is going on all over. We’re doing very well in a lot of states. A lot of good things are happening in Georgia. We’re getting little help from government, but a lot of good things are happening in Georgia, Wisconsin, in Michigan they’re seeing what happened in Detroit. And we sure are looking at what’s happening in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.
What happened in Philadelphia, they keep the poll watchers not only in pens, but they keep them out of the building and the only reason they got back into the building was they got a court order. And then the definition of back into the building was very far away where they couldn’t see anything. And they talked about closed circuit television, except you couldn’t see it, because the picture was so unclear you didn’t even know what they were doing. They could have been playing a baseball game. So it’s a very sad thing for our country to have this. And they have to turn over the results. It would be easy for me to say, oh, let’s worry about four years from now. No. This election was lost by the Democrats. They cheated. It was a fraudulent election. They flooded the market [applause], they frauded everybody on ballots, and I just want to thank everybody for being there. You’re doing a tremendous service. This is a very important moment in the history of our country, and you’re doing a tremendous service to our country. And don’t worry about bravery, because the people that talk the most, they’re not the ones you have to worry about. And these are all talkers, they intimidate.
But these are not people that you’re going to ultimately have to…they push you around. They pushed our poll workers out. Our poll watchers were pushed out of the building. Okay, some got back in they wouldn’t put in the pens. But these are not people. Don’t be intimidated by these people. But they’re bad people. They’re horrible people. And they’re people that don’t love our country. So we don’t have to worry about four years right now. We have to worry what happened on November 3rd and previous to November 3rd. And by the way, after November 3rd, when people put votes in and they put them in illegally, they put them in after the polls closed. And one of our great Supreme Court justices made mention of that and I can’t imagine that any justice or anybody looking at it could be thrilled when they vote after the election is over. So I want to thank everybody very much for being there. I want to thank the state senate and respected people, tremendous people, and you’re doing a tremendous service for our country. And if something was done wrong, if this election was won fraudulently – and that’s what happened, it was a fraud – and we’re talking about – very importantly – many more ballots, many more votes than the number we need.
In other words, if we needed 50,000 votes, we’re not talking about we found nine dead people that voted, of course, there were many more than that, numbers that nobody even believes. No, we’re talking about numbers that are far in excess of the 50,000, far in excess of another state where we lost by 10,000 and they went absolutely wild because we got far more votes than they thought possible. And they’ve just stepped on the gas and they got caught, just like they got caught spying on my campaign, they got caught exactly…they got caught doing this, so I really appreciate it and the country appreciates it and we have to turn the election over, because there’s no doubt, we have all the evidence, we have all the affidavits, we have everything. All we need is to have some judge listen to it properly without having a political opinion or having another kind of a problem, because we have everything. And by the way, the evidence is pouring in now as we speak and I want to thank Rudy Giuliani for having the courage to do this [applause] because there are other lawyers that back down because they were being screamed at. Rudy is the greatest Mayor in the history of New York and there’s a reason.
He’s got great courage and he doesn’t care. He wants to do what’s right. And I told him the other day, Rudy, you were the greatest mayor in the history of New York, and you see what happened to New York without Rudy? You were the greatest mayor, but this is more important. What you’re doing now is far more important than being a great mayor of the city of New York and being its greatest mayor by far. By the way, by far. This is going to be your crowning achievement because you’re saving our country. Thank you all very much. Thank you [applause].
Argall: I think what you’ve just heard guarantees that a hundred years from now that this is the most important public hearing ever held by the senate committee. We turn now for questions. Representative Ryan [applause].
Frank Ryan: First of all, thank you very much Mayor for being here, for all the testifiers. You know, 16 years ago this week I was called out of retirement and recalled active duty to go to Iraq to do the elections in Iraq on January 30th, 2005. That was an extraordinarily secure election. As a former commanding officer of a civil affairs group and psychological operations command, I know how to do elections. And what happened in Pennsylvania – from a process control perspective – was absolutely a travesty. What I am concerned about is the remedy. How do we go from here we? We see that there’s a perspective from our council that a 1937 law provided the ability to appoint the electors to the Secretary of State. And I’m curious as to whether or not, sir, you believe a special prosecutor should be appointed at the federal level to look at all these irregularities, or whether or not there is still actions that can be done at the state level to ensure that the goal of what we’re attempting to do is to ensure as we did for the people in Iraq and as I did with the people in Haiti to ensure that the results are fair, accurate, transparent and a representation of the will of the people of the United States.
Rudy Giuliani: My suggestion would be – and of course there are several different remedies that you could have – one would be to declare that the votes that were not inspected properly be declared null and void in that County and deducted from the vote total. It’s essentially what they do in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has the strictest absentee law in the country. They require an application for every ballot and when they finish, they only count the number of absentee ballots that have an application. They deduct from the total from that County whatever are missing. So if you have 5,000 absentee ballots but only 4,000 applications you deduct 1,000 votes. And the reason they do that is to deter people from doing that in the future. Look at it this way. If you didn’t deduct the 678,000 – or whatever it is – votes that were not counted, there’s no penalty for it. What stops them from doing it again next time? And this is a question of not voters acting improperly. It’s a question of the inferior offices of this state – because they’re inferior to the legislature in this regard – acted improperly. They conducted a completely sham election. They’re the ones who have to be penalised.
It’s a little like the exclusionary rule in criminal law. They’ve got to be taught you can’t do that. The other thing you could do is you could demand to see all of the envelopes that were cast aside. Like, I will virtually guarantee you’re going to see a couple of hundred thousand envelopes that have no names, partial names, the same name. You could ask to see the ballots. You’re probably going to see ballots that are official and ballots that are unofficial. You have two major gaps. you have the 672,770 votes that were not inspected by anyone, secretly put into the ballot box, and then you have this gap that I don’t understand between the mail-in ballots you sent out – 1.8 million – and the number you counted – 2.5 million – that’s totally impossible to explain other than what some of the witnesses were suggesting, that they were that they were basically stuffing the ballot box. I believe what happened is they never expected to be behind by seven or 800,000 votes on election night, they expected to be behind by a couple of hundred thousand. In Philadelphia, to steal a couple hundred thousand votes, they do it every year. That’s not going to be tough.
Now, you had a real big problem. So you had to create mail-in ballots, you had to stretch it out for a while. We didn’t go into detail on the Dominion system, but we have two other experts who can show you how they injected votes into the Dominion system, and also…so I think I would settle this election, but I would definitely appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the people who conducted this election. You might even ask just a general question, how could the Governor and the Elections Commissioner…how could they have selected a company that counts our votes outside the United States?
Rudy Guiliani: I didn’t know that.
Argall: Thank you.
Mastriano: Thank you. Representative [inaudible 02:28:03]…questions for any of our panellists?
Argall: This is like our lightning round here to conclude.
Regan: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think what I’m going to do is make more of a statement to throw out a timeline because to try and reiterate what everyone else has already done, just be…a couple years ago, our Supreme Court in Pennsylvania very illegally redrew congressional maps. It’s very clear in our constitution that is a legislative act. Fast forward…a couple of months ago, our Supreme Court rewrote our election law. Again that needs to be done in statute. It is a legislative act. When it came to the mail-in balloting, that house bill I want to say was 77 – Act 77 – I was really kind of taken aback by how eager the governor was to sign that bill. Normally, bills can sit on his desk eight and almost 10 days before he signs them or lets them become low on their own or vetoes them right away, and that one, he signed almost instantaneously. And I just kind of wondered, so after I saw what happened in the primary, I wrote house bill 2626 and this is where it kind of locks it in for me Mr Mayor and panellists. In house bill 2626, I saw where there could possibly be stuffing the boxes, so I said simply, let’s put a barcode on the bottom of every mail out ballot so that the machine has to read a barcode that was accepted by the elections office.
Before that ballot goes out, they zap it, when it comes back if that barcode doesn’t match one of the barcodes that they sent out, it gets kicked out. The governor immediately as soon as we ran that bill out of committee said, that hits my desk it’s an automatic veto. Not everybody knows that, but that came to us. We had to literally strip that out of the bill, and I will be reintroducing a bill to barcode any ballot that gets mailed out when we get back, trust me. Then we have the drop boxes, the three days extra to vote, the ignoring the signatures and ignoring the postmarks and I have to come to the conclusion that you did also. If it looks like corruption, smells like corruption, it’s corruption. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it very much. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Argall: Thank you Senator Regan.
? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you to all our testifiers today. It’s been very informative. My question, Mr Mayor, you touched upon it briefly, but I want to just…if you could delve it a little bit more into it. Attorney General Barr, shortly after the election authorized the US attorneys across the country to investigate allegations of voter fraud. I wonder if you could tell us about the criminal investigations that are going on, maybe specifically in Pennsylvania, by our US attorneys? Maybe our FBI? And tell us how that is going and is there any evidence that’s been presented to you or are you made privy to any of this information?
Rudy Guiliani: I’m sorry senator, I wouldn’t be made privy to that…to criminal investigations. And in my experience, criminal investigations, you know, would take too long to help you in your most immediate decision. Criminal investigations could help you in your long-term decision as to how to reform, so this never happens again, which I think you all will want to do. For example, not ever hiring again a company that counts votes in Frankfurt, Germany, that’s owned by two Venezuelans, who are very close to Hugo Chavez and Maduro. That’s extraordinary and unfortunately, we don’t have the time to really analyze the votes. Although if you want to go into greater detail we have other forensic experts that can show you votes that were specifically put into the machine because these machines have a back door that allows you to do that. So I would say the criminal proceedings are going to take six months to a year. What you have before you that you can verify is you have before you very, very clear evidence. It’s not small. It’s not as if these are a couple little mistakes that happen. And I hear people say, oh, every election has a couple of little mistakes, not 682,000 ballots that nobody got to inspect that from time immemorial…we’ve never had trouble in America with absentee ballots.
I’ve been in an absentee ballot contest in New York, and they can, you know, they can be pretty vicious, and the language is worse than that poor lady experienced. But we would never think of having one without the Republican there and the Democrat there. Even in New York we would never think of it. Here, they did it 700,000 times. That’s an insult to the legislature because you didn’t provide for that, and you’ve got this gap with 700,000 unexplained mail-in ballots that come out of nowhere. So I think you have more than enough to say that this election, the numbers don’t add up. It’s easy to figure out what the right numbers are by excluding the illegal votes and count the honest votes and the winner of the election changes.
? Thank you very much, sir.
Argall: Senator Mario Scavello.
Scavello: I’m just going to make a couple of comments. First, I want to thank everybody for coming out here today. We need your support, your continued support, throughout this whole process because we’re going to also get the other side that don’t want us to do anything at all. And we definitely need to do something. We need to correct this problem. My Northampton County chairperson, [Lisa Noah 02:34:33], did an excellent job explaining what was going on in Northampton County. One of the biggest things that bothered me more than anything else was people that went back, went to vote and they were told they already voted. That happened…I must have heard it from 50 people in my district. So, you know, they made them sign a provisional and I called up and I says, you better make sure those provisionals are counted. And some of the other things that were happening that, you know, most of the stuff that you said out there, it happened in every County. But when you didn’t want to vote with your absentee and you went in, you’re supposed to get a ballot, not a provisional, and there were people out there that got provisionals. But just a little information for all of you.
The new machines, this new process. We didn’t vote for it. That was something that was pushed by the governor. He mandated that all of the counties had to go and change their system because he wanted some type of…what we don’t have is a form to see who voted, they wanted a certificate or something, a slip to see how you voted, who voted and it’s obvious that this system has not worked and the people of Pennsylvania are not happy about it. Thank you [applause].
Argall: Thank you. Madam Majority Leader Elect.
Ward: Thank you. First of all, I just want to say what they did in Philadelphia, when they closed us out and made us go to court to do what we should have legally been able to do is a travesty to…what we in Pennsylvania need to have confidence in our elections. That should never happen again, and we should probably tighten our law so that it can’t. Secondly, I’m extremely bothered by the absentee ballot and the mail-in ballot request number being almost 700,000 off from what we received. And so we just did try to get on the Department of State, and they did take down their dashboard, so we can’t even check it. So if you have any of that information, any pictures or any, you know, website downloads, we would really appreciate having those because they took them down. So I don’t know. Everything they do looks like they’re trying to hide something, and it really, really continues to erode any kind of confidence in our process.
Rudy Giuliani: Senator, what I would suggest is they decided that morning or maybe a couple days before to exclude you because they knew what they were going to do. It wasn’t done…it wasn’t an accidental sort of whim to exclude all Republicans. It’s unheard of to exclude all republicans. They excluded you because of what you would see. You would see ballots that weren’t properly filled out. You would see ballots that were filled out at the last minute. You would see them start to get reports of how far behind they were because they were connecting to Dominion and Smartmatic and they were telling them how far behind they were. And you would have caught them right in the middle of the fraud. Why create this big problem for yourself of excluding Republicans in six states – hundreds and maybe thousands of them – if you’re not doing something wrong? If you’re doing something – as the senator said – that’s kosher, come on, look, who cares? This big thing wasn’t done because they were conducting an honest vote. It’s kind of crazy to think that. This was done because they knew this is the only way they could steal this election. And when he was ahead by those numbers on Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, they panicked.
I’ll also tell you, there’s an expert witness who can testify that this pattern fits the pattern that Smartmatic used in two elections that they stole in South America. When the election was getting too far away, they called a halt in the voting count. Well, there was a halt called in six places including in Pennsylvania. In one place they made believe there was an overflowed water tank. It happened to be one little toilet bowl. They took a two-hour halt and in Michigan, they brought in 100,000 ballots through the back door and counted them with nobody observing them except three people who happen to be remaining behind. That’s evidence that’s also in affidavits and could be presented to the Michigan legislature. Those people are willing to testify. And just one other thing, these people are very brave people. A lot of people aren’t testifying [applause], they’re backed up by 50 more who are willing to testify. Obviously, we can’t present all of them. I want you to know that all of them are backed up by numerous witnesses who say the same thing. But there are probably another 50 who are not willing to testify, including probably what would have been one of our best witnesses because he’s been threatened with the loss of his job and his children being thrown out of their private school.
Ward: Thank you very much Mr Mayor. Thank you.
Argall: Thank you senator. Let’s try our Zoom capabilities. Senator Michelle Brooks, calling in from North-western Pennsylvania.
Brooks: Thank you Senator Argall. I did want to make a few comments first. I joined my colleagues in being concerned about the arbitrary Supreme Court decisions and their decision to decide to be legislators. And all Pennsylvanians need to be concerned about this. You know, it’s not only the election or redrawing maps. What’s going to be next that impacts our state? And so not only do we need to be looking at what happened with this election. We need to be looking at how we can stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from wanting to legislate when that’s not what they’re supposed to be doing. And it’s very disconcerting, the decisions they made contrary to state law in regards to this election. My question is if you could talk about the drop-off boxes. Again, something the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed. Talk about the security around them. I know in my area I did not have a significant amount of drop boxes, but can you talk about what type of security or parameters of safety were around these drop-off boxes? And also, how many ballots were collected in these drop boxes? Thank you.
Rudy Giuliani: That of course is subject of another lawsuit, was brought the other day. I only know it generally. The drop-off boxes were provided – speaking very broadly – in the Democrat part of the state, not in the republican parts of the state. They were many, many, many very closely, very close to each other in Philadelphia and Allegheny County, places like that. They were miles and miles apart in other places, and as far as I can tell – I’ve only read the lawsuit – I don’t know the details of it – there was no security for them. And there are many situations where very suspicious activity was seen, with people dropping off – you know, you’re not supposed to harvest votes – people dropping off 30 and 40 ballots at a time. That’s a pretty big family. They’re going to have a tough time this Thanksgiving, by the way, with the [inaudible 02:45:50]. They’re going to have to eat in like, four or five different tents, with…hopefully they’ll be able to celebrate Thanksgiving. But…I’m sorry I just don’t know the details of that. But it is the subject of another lawsuit and the decision of your Supreme Court that is completely outrageous is the one in which they say that present means just being there.
I mean, there was a movie with Peter Sellers called Being There. I don’t know if you ever saw it, but he was a potted plant. That’s totally absurd to think that when you passed the rule that there should be present representatives of both sides or all sides, that you meant for them to sit there and look at the drapes. I mean, they were supposed to be there to as the intermediate court decided. This case was decided by the intermediate appellate court in the President’s favor, with a very sensible decision saying present in this context can mean only one thing, present in order to see the identifying data. And in a completely political decision – five to two – they ruled what I would regard as they…it was a totally irrational ruling, which we will appeal to the Supreme Court. I think it was embarrassing…
Argall: Thank you.
Rudy Guiliani: …for them to rule that way.
Argall: Thank you. Senator Judy Ward.
Ward: Thank you and I also want to thank our testifiers today. They were incredibly brave and what I heard today was so troubling to me. I don’t know if I’ll ever get it out of my head and I’m sickened by the fact that it happened here on our watch. In regards to doing a forensic audit, would this be able to be done or be anywhere accurate? Does anybody know?
Rudy Guiliani: I was just looking around for my two experts. He came over to tell me that all of the material that we have – forensic material we have – is archived and we can easily make it available to you online and you can look it over. I don’t understand all of it, but maybe I have people help me understand it. But yes, you could do a forensic audit of them of the machines. You can do that [applause].
Argall: Thank you.
Rudy Guiliani: It would be very, very helpful. I understand that even one machine would give you a great deal of information about how the whole system operates and how they slip votes in at various times. And you’re not supposed to be connected to the internet in the counting room, but they were connected to the internet. Your tally was being sent to Frankfurt, Germany, where it was being analyzed.
Argall: We have a question from Senator Langaholc, out in Johnstown, connected via Zoom. Wayne, can you hear me?
Langaholc: Yes, thank you can you hear me?
Argall: Yes, loud, and clear.
Langaholc: Thank you, Senator Argall. Thank you, Senator Mastriano. Thank the testifiers for being here. Mr Mayor, thank you for your testimony. I’ve been vocal that we must allow this legal process to play out and a country that we live in that we do not allow that is not a country that I want to be a part of. My question is on that legal review and on those legal process. Mr Mayor, can you give us an indication of how many lawsuits are pending, where they’re at in the various appellate processes, and second part to that, the allegations of the mail-in ballots, the 1.8 versus the 2.5 that came in, is that the substance of a lawsuit? Thank you.
Jenna Ellis: This is Jenna Ellis, and the Mayor has asked me to answer this question. So as far as the campaign is concerned, we have pending lawsuits here in Pennsylvania, that’s going up to the third circuit. They’ve granted an expedited review. We also have pending litigation in Nevada. We also have recounts in Georgia and Wisconsin and we also have a pending lawsuit in Michigan. So regarding the mail-in specifically, we are still looking at all of the other legal options, and we are also planning on filing additional litigation by the end of this week. I won’t go into detail on that, other than to say that this is asking for a judicial remedy to this and also, I’ll invite the question from the panel as well in terms of a remedy. Part of what we are asking, or what we did ask initially was to stop certification so that we could get to the bottom of this process. Clearly, you’ve heard sufficient evidence today that would lead any reasonable finder of fact to say that there’s been sufficient evidence that you should stop that, you should not move forward with certification. What we would ask the judiciary in terms of remedy can be legislative as well under the constitution and I would direct your attention to Article 2, Section 1.2 which says that each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors. And so you the legislature without judicial oversight can direct and take back that power. You have the opportunity as the legislature. And legislature in this context means the state legislature. So although there has been delegated authority to your Secretary of State and according to your law at any time you can take back that power and that is the provision and the protection that is embedded in the constitution to make sure that when there are instances of corruption in a state, that the state legislature which is the representatives of we the people, all of these wonderful people who are here today in Pennsylvania, and all of your constituencies who voted and who want their voice to be heard, because we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We the people [applause] need to submit…
Argall: Thank you.
Jenna Ellis: …need to submit our vote. And so I would say in terms of a remedy, you may fashion that even outside the purview of the litigation that we are now bringing. And I’m happy to go into that into more detail if the panel would prefer.
Argall: Thank you. Representative Kaufman.
Kaufman: Thank you very much and thank you Mr Mayor for being here and Attorney Ellis. We appreciate your service to the nation because these are definitely difficult times and all of those who have testified, it truly does take bravery to step out in situations like this and talk about your personal experience. I wanted to direct this to Mayor Giuliani and Attorney Ellis. In the cured ballot issue which – or uncured ballot issue – the ability to cure in one area of the state and not in others, that is certainly to many of us seems to be an equal protection violation under the 14th amendment. Can you quantify what you’ve found as far as maybe number or information as far as the number of ballots we’re talking and how widespread it is across the Commonwealth as far as, you know, were there two counties that allowed for curing, and, you know, they were Philadelphia and Pittsburgh or were there more counties out there that allowed for curing, that kind of information would be very helpful to us I think.
Rudy Guiliani: There’s no question, representative, that it went on. And it went on in the two counties you mentioned and probably three or four more. Curing, in other words. It did not go on in the majority of counties, Republican or Democrat. Most of them weren’t…the Elections Commissioner sent out a notice, advice that you could cure the ballot. If you checked with your lawyer, your lawyer would say no, you can’t do that, the legislature has to provide for a cured ballot. So your counties that were sticking to the strict letter of the law didn’t provide for curing. The counties that were acting I would say illegally because the Election Commissioner doesn’t have the authority to make that change followed it. It does turn out that those are largely the the Biden counties did the curing and the Trump counties didn’t do the curing. It’s hard to know how many it affected. I could get you the number of actually cured ballots, but I don’t think I can get you to the number that aren’t cured.
Rudy Guiliani: Who are the ones that were affected? When we argued this in front of the court, the judge said, well, maybe those people in the counties that didn’t allow curing should sue that County? But that County didn’t do anything wrong. That County followed the law. The reason they were deprived of their right to vote on an equal basis is because other counties followed what would be the illegal advice of the Election Commissioner, that you could cure a ballot for which there is no authority in state law. So we will try to do better to get a good number there, but it’s hard to do because a lot of it affected people who just didn’t vote.
Kaufman: Sure, and…
Rudy Guiliani: …but I do think the practice, you know, in some cases the numbers are sufficient to overturn the election. In some cases the numbers aren’t. But what they do do is show how onerous and how Draconian the measure they took to flip this election. I mean, some of them result in numbers that affect the outcome of the election, like not examining the ballots. Some of them don’t. But there’s still indications that this was a deliberate fraud. This wasn’t just a couple of election officials’ kind of screwed up. This was a deliberate, planned fraud and that’s why the remedy – which seems kind of tough – is justified. If this were just a couple of mistakes, that would be a tough remedy. But this is a plan that was carried out throughout your entire state and I submit it was carried out in concert with other Democrat organizations and if you look carefully they picked only Democrat cities, where they control law enforcement and the courts, and they can get ridiculous decisions like the first decision they got from a judge in Philadelphia, who said, oh, you’re present, why do you have to see anything? Well, because I’m an inspector, that’s why. That’s a purely political hack decision.
And they knew they could get decisions like that in Philadelphia, in Detroit. If it were a different kind of election, Chicago, New York. Those are the kinds of cities they picked. They didn’t pick – even in your state – kind of neutral cities, Democrat or Republican.
Argall: Thank you. Representative Schemel.
Schemel: Thank you Mr Chair. Three quick questions for three different testifiers. So we certainly know about the irregularities and inconsistencies you just detailed. An inconsistency and you can’t prove a negative, that’s why you can never prove votes that were never allowed to be cured. But in regard to allegations of fraud, I have question first – and forgive me, I don’t remember names – but the gentleman here from Philadelphia who was denied admittance to observe in a poll. You describe being denied the ability to get into a polling place. Did you seek to be admitted to any other polling places and were also denied?
Charles Nudo: I could have gone to other polling places where I heard there was problems, but we decided to move on to other problems that – what was her name – I was actually at her polling place when she was being totally harassed. I was one of about five, six guys to stop the harassment…
Schemel: So there was no polling place that you sought admission to in and around the city of Philadelphia that just allowed you in when you displayed your orange card?
Charles Nudo: I probably could have gone to that entire ward and had the same problem. We went out of that ward because there was other problems going on that day.
Schemel: Okay, next question for gentleman next to you, attorney from Florida, you were observing polls and the processes in the city of Pittsburgh. I believe that you describe being kept away from being able to observe the tabulators and so forth. That was a problem we certainly saw in other places in city of Philadelphia. When you were eventually allowed to get closer where perhaps you could see the ballots and the votes, did you observe anything different about the behavior of the tabulators? Did their behavior change? Did their methodologies change? Anything to lead you to think that they were, you know, conducting the process one way when you weren’t observing and a different way when you were?
Dave Shistokis: In the first instance, we were never really able to get…there was only one time…one element of the process where we were able to actually get reasonably close to see what a tabulator was doing. And that was with overseas and military ballots. When overseas and military ballots come in, they come in a different format that’s not readable by the machines, and so there’s a individual that takes the ballot and then keys in the votes for the voters. And of that group we could see about three or four of those people doing that transposition of those ballots. Beyond that…and that was for a very short period of time on actually Friday evening, Friday after the election, they were beginning to tabulate overseas and military ballots. With that singular exception, we couldn’t actually see any ballot at that particular moment that you ask about. There was no opportunity to ever really see any ballot other than that situation and there was one worker that was within – oh, I don’t know eight or ten feet of us at the at the edge and we did in fact see him do 35 Biden military ballots all in a row, which we found to be kind of curious but it did not…what he was doing did equate with the papers that he had in front of him.
Schemel: Okay, thanks. My final question for Mr Giuliani. You’ve alleged fraud within our voting system and we’ve heard a lot of anecdotal evidence we have as representatives and senators and you presented a good deal today, but amongst the affidavits you have, do you have any affidavits from anyone who is a could be quantified as a whistleblower, who actually was part of the fraud and is now willing to testify as to the fraud?
Rudy Guiliani: Yes, we do. We have I believe [applause]…I have to check this, but I believe – sometimes I get the states a little confused – but I believe there are three that would need a subpoena to protect themselves in order to testify.
Schemel: Okay, and then I would presume that’s part of the legal…
Rudy Guiliani: And I would say at least one of them is a Democrat.
Rudy Guiliani: I’m not sure of the other two.
Schemel: …part of your legal claims I would assume?
Rudy Guiliani: Yes sir.
Schemel: Very good, thank you.
Rudy Guiliani: And if there’s a subpoena process, we could work with them to come forward and…they’re frightened for their jobs and I don’t want to make too much of it, but they’re also frightened for their physical safety. I mean, this is a case in which one of the lawyers – one of our chief lawyers in the case – had to leave because his family and his little children were threatened for representing the President of the United States. That’s not America.
Argall: Representative Jones.
Jones: Can you hear me? Okay, great. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone who testified. I do have a question, but a couple of just comments to sort of get on the record. For those that maybe think this is like, we just don’t like the result. That’s not really the case. I’ve spent weeks since the election having numerous people go through data and for the sake of time, I just want to highlight a couple of examples, why some of these things just at a minimum they certainly make you scratch your head a little bit. And one thing is voter registration trends that…we went back to 2004 and all of the presidential elections and pretty much without exception, the registration trends in a given County are a pretty good indicator of how the votes would go. State-wide for example, Democrats had a 1.1 million – I’m rounding the numbers here – in 2012, about a 1.1 million voter registration advantage and then President Obama won re-election. In 2016, that number was down to 900,000 – just under 900,000 – and as we know, President Trump won Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes. In the weeks leading…in the months leading up to the election Republicans were gaining about five to ten thousand votes – registrations at least – per week.
I know that because I was spearheading our York, Pennsylvania for Trump effort in my spare time. And that, what had been a 900,000 advantage at election day was down to about 680,000. That’s a couple of hundred thousand, almost all of which occurred in the six months or so leading up to the election. Yet the president loses by 90,000 votes. Not impossible, just want to get it out there. Let’s drill down a little further. My home County of York County, which netted more votes for the President than any other in 2016, we had a 13,000 increase in Republican registrations. Democrats dropped 1,000, Republicans increased 12,000, yet the President’s margin of victory decreased by 2,000. In Westmoreland County there was a 26,000-vote swing, a County even smaller than York. Democrats saw a 10 percent decrease in registrations, yet Joe Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton by more than 20 percent. It doesn’t prove anything, but I want to at least bring it to everyone’s attention that we’re just not sort of making things up here that we don’t like. Some of these are certainly head scratchers. So I’m…when you lose 10,000 Democrat registrations, gain 16,000, yet the margin of victory stays the same and Biden increases by 12,000 votes in that County, that’s surprising.
Lastly, if I may, I wanna talk a little bit about…I don’t know if the gentleman can testify or can return, but your witness on…the gentleman with the military background on the voter fraud and so forth…
Argall: Colonel Waldron.
Jones: …yes, thank you sir. I guess my question here is, do we believe or have reason to believe that the mail-in would be more or less susceptible than the election day vote to manipulation? And here’s why I ask, another head scratcher, I’m comparing Republican to Republican, Democrat to Democrat. We all know that Biden did better with mail-in and that was expected, because a lot more Democrats voted by mail and of course the President did better on election day. Nothing to see there. However, when we compare President Trump to a relatively unknown candidate named Stacy Garrity, who was elected a Republican, who won the race for Treasurer. On election day the president defeated…did 128,000 votes better than than Ms Garrity on election day. Not really all that surprising. A number of people don’t vote down ballot and so forth. Yet with mail-in ballots, she did 41,000 better than the President. I have a hard time understanding that. Let’s go to Joe Biden. I want to let…we have a relatively well-known Attorney General here, Democrat Josh Shapiro, who won re-election. On election day he defeated Joe Biden by 52,000 votes.
He did 52,000 better than Joe Biden, yet with the mail-ins, Biden does 54,000 better than Shapiro. And I just sort of want to get that on everybody’s radar. Maybe there’s an explanation, but I don’t really understand how democratic mail-in voters are that much different than democratic election day voters and interestingly enough, apparently republicans who vote by mail are much more likely to vote for the down ballot candidate than on election day. Last comment there, part of the argument is that people didn’t vote down ballot. That’s going to be a lot more prevalent on election day when you’ve waited in line for two hours and you’re in a hurry to get out there. But this speaks to the opposite with a mail-in ballot you have plenty of time to complete your ballot and to go down ballot. So if that was the case the opposite should be true if you’re if you’re tracking with me. So I guess my question there is on…do we think the mail-in is more susceptible and then lastly, maybe for you Mr Chairman or whoever has a little more clout here than I do, we need…it is imperative that we secure the Sure System data. And some of the things that we are questioning can be easily proven or disproven.
We just want the facts, so for example, if we see huge numbers of inactive voters – I think one of the witnesses spoke to that – did we see huge numbers of inactive voters on the mail-in side? That’s all right there in the data. We know how frequently people voted. We know who requested mail-in ballots. Did we see multiple mail-in ballots going to the same address? It is mind-boggling the record turnout that we saw in a state where mail-in voting is brand new, during a time of COVID, where, you know, the ground game was certainly hindered by that. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but we have the data. This is a simple query of data. This is not a manual recount of ballots. This is a simple query of data that the state possesses, specifically to say, did significant numbers of mail-in ballots go to the same address? I could do that myself in probably 10 minutes if I had the data. And did we see large numbers of inactive voters coming out for a candidate who had very little enthusiasm? And maybe it all happened. But we don’t have to speculate. The data is there, and I would suggest we have a look at that, so I apologize. Thank you for humoring me with that.
It’s just a topic we hadn’t touched on very much. I wanted to throw some examples out and I am curious if you feel the mail-in is more susceptible or less susceptible than the in-person voting.
Waldron: Representative Jones, the user’s manual for specifically the Dominion and the ESNS suite, they do allow the administrator to batch process mail-in votes. So what that does is they process all the mail-in votes in a batch and it can be a batch, you know, they normally scan in batches of 50, but they can just chunk all of those votes into a batch file. The administrator then can select which candidate or which percentages of that mail-in ballot go to which candidate. So they’re very susceptible to individual manipulation by the administrator, operator.
Jones: And would that be if you were trying to move large numbers of votes, would it be more logical to do that through the mail-in where you had a large batch at a County level or am I speculating too much now?
Waldron: Yes, no and it’s…to do a manual recount of all those ballots is much more time-consuming and like we mentioned earlier, if they were mass produced, you know, and they were single vote, then there is potential to add extra ballots to the count.
Jones: Thank you very much and I appreciate you giving me the time, Mr Chairman. I also I’m just curious what we heard, the testimony with the USB sticks in Delaware. Why that’s not being investigated. That seems like that would be criminal activity that we’ve heard here discussed and whether…where law enforcement is on that. Probably not your immediate concern Mr Mayor, but I am curious about that as well. Thank you very much.
Argall: Thank you. Representative Zimmerman.
Zimmerman: Yeah, thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Mayor for coming to Pennsylvania and all those willing to testify, thank you so much. So just a comment and then also a question. So in Lancaster County where I’m from, since May we registered over 12,000 new Republicans and a large percent of those ended up being Amish. They might understand the difference between freedom and socialism more than most of us, but I think probably the audience is here for that reason as well. So that’s just a comment just for your information. The question I have Mayor for you is that as legislators here in Pennsylvania, is there one or two things that you would advise us or suggest to us that we really concentrate on and…or make a change? You know, what comes to mind that would be most important for us to really do here in Pennsylvania?
Rudy Giuliani: Well, first thing of course, as a lawyer for my client, along with Jenna, we would ask you not to certify and to certify the correct, honest votes, which I think can be arrived at several different ways. And probably the easiest way to arrive at it, just because of the huge number of votes, the votes that were not properly inspected. And when I say properly inspected, they weren’t inspected at all. You could almost consider them hidden votes, counted in a back room where everybody was smoking cigars. And the reason you have a lot of votes without a down ballot – you’re quite correct, Representative jones – that it’s much easier to fill out your home, you can fill out the down ballot than rushing through a machine. However if you only have a half hour to get 10,000 votes in, you don’t have time to do the down ballot, do you? If you’re sitting, you know, in a truck somewhere, right near the place you’re going to bring in in shopping bags and…I don’t think we have this evidence here, but we have this evidence in Michigan, we have evidence of trucks coming in with ballots and garbage pails. And ballots in cardboard boxes. So maybe it’s my prosecutor’s paranoia, but it seems to me that those ballots were filled out that night and you don’t have time to vote for all those.
You just got enough time to go… And that’s why you get this strange anomaly that there are so many down ballots not filled out for Biden.
Waldron: Can I have one more thing?
Rudy Giuliani: Yes sir.
Waldron: I learned as a lieutenant never to bring a problem to my superiors without a solution. That’s one of the things I try to live to today. There are solutions that are available, but I’ve made the simple comment that your vote should be at least as secure as your Venmo account and it’s not…it’s easily fixable with app, with blockchain. There is a process out there that was developed by MIT. It’s called voatz, v-o-a-t-z. It’s being fielded now. The problem is there are no national standards for federal elections and there are no enforceable standards. So if there is a…if nothing else out, of this election, if we have a set of enforceable standards and we use technology like blockchain to ensure that every vote going through the whole process is transparent from soup to nuts, then we can ensure a technologically advanced, secure election that’s not…an individual vote may be manipulable, but batches of votes would not be so…
Zimmerman: Great information, thank you so much.
Waldron: Thank you Mr chairman.
Argall: Thank you.
Jenna Ellis: May I add one thing? [Inaudible 03:12:11]…Mayor. So you asked what two things? Well, I think those two things are very clear, that you have to deal with today and then you have to deal with the future. And the more pressing instance right now is today, and this body should deal with that in some way and you are the best constitutionally invested entity to do that. You have a variety of options in front of you and when you deliberate together how to best address that, you have the constitutional authority and permission to do it. And so the Mayor has suggested one possible remedy. There are others, and you could call for a special election still. You can direct the manner of your electors. You have a variety of constitutional options, but one option should not be to ignore it and to certify a corrupted, irredeemably compromised election [applause]. So we would ask that you deal with that today and then for the future, look at all of these things that you’ve raised, look at all of the voting machines, look at all of these people who are interfering really. You have an executive office and branch that is runaway. You have from your governor to your Secretary of State to each of these individual election officers.
This is election official fraud, and that’s what’s going on here, and for the sake of every future election that should be addressed in the legislature because you also have the constitutionally vested obligation to the people of the state to address that. So my recommendation along with the Mayor and I…I sincerely applaud everything that he has said as well and on behalf of our client, but on behalf of the nation you’re right when you say that this isn’t just about overturning an election. It’s not about deriving the outcome, that’s what the fraudsters want to do. What we want to make sure of is that we the people get to select and prefer our Commander-in-Chief and you have the obligation and the responsibility to insure for the people of Pennsylvania that that works.
Argall: Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe we have Representative Metcalfe on Zoom with one final question. Daryl.
Metcalfe: Can you hear me Senator Dave
Argall: Loud and clear.
Metcalfe: Thank you sir. Thank you, Senator Argall, Senator Mastriano for hosting this very important hearing. It’s very important to the future of our Republic today. Thank you for the invitation to the house members that are joining you there today. Thank you for the invitation for me to join you via Zoom today and thank you for the opportunity to provide some input and ask a question of Mayor Giuliani here today. But a lot of what’s been talked about tonight, and I really appreciate Mayor Giuliani and the attorney’s initiation to the general assembly to reassert our constitutional authority regarding the certification of this election, I am a former state government committee chair that had oversight for the election law for many years. I served in that position not during the class term, but in the past and we have battled in Pennsylvania to fight the fraud and fight the way that our election laws have been violated, not just for several cycles but for decades. And we’ve actually had a state senate race that was overturned I believe in the Philadelphia area back in the 90s because of fraud. So when we when we look at what has occurred here, and I really appreciate Mayor Giuliani bringing all those individuals before us today to provide a testimony at this hearing.
And I think even more important, I hope that we get a chance to see that their testimony was heard in a court of law, where a just ruling is found to protect every legal vote that was cast here in this election in November and to discard all those votes that were not legally cast. And I think as we’ve been overwhelmed as was mentioned by the senators at the beginning of this meeting that as we came through election day and prior up to that we’d had three and a half million people filing for unemployment because of the unconstitutional dictates of Wolf to shut down businesses and stop people from going to work in Pennsylvania and we were just overwhelmed with those calls, but since election day we have been overwhelmed with calls from individuals who are distraught, distraught over the future of our republic, the future of our future elections and being able to ensure that people are having their legitimate, legal votes counted to elect who’s going to govern them. And right now with the examples that were shown here today with these witnesses, a lot of the people have been calling my office and emailing me.
They are demanding action, and as we’ve heard today there’s a lot of citizens out there that have important information that needs to be shared in the courtroom to ensure that that these fraudulent activities and it’s not – I mean a lot of times when people talk about fraud they’re thinking of impersonation – but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about fraudulent activities as far as a fraudulent election because they’ve not they’ve not abided by the laws that have been passed by we the people through our elected legislature as the US constitution, as our state constitution, as our laws provide for to facilitate our elections. So Mayor Giuliani, as we move forward…and I stand with Senator Mastriano and others that are there today. I actually sent an email out while I was listening to some of the testimony today given at the hearing to the whole Republican caucus and the Pennsylvania House to encourage them to sign on and listen to what was happening today with this information that I think they all need to hear and that every Pennsylvanian, every American needs to here. To help encourage our citizens, Mayor Giuliani, as you move forward in the court battle – I know the press has been continually day after day saying, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, well, I think we heard a lot today.
Do you expect that you’re going to have an opportunity in the right level of courts in our state, in our nation, to have this evidence presented by some of these people here today and others that you have signing affidavits?
Rudy Giuliani: Yes, I am. I’m certain that there will be a court decision that will allow us to present our evidence. The case in Pennsylvania was dismissed on a motion to dismiss, in which the judge made factual findings against us, basically saying he thought our claims were absurd. Of course, he has no right to do that on a motion to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss, he has to assume that everything we’re saying is true and I think it was just done to delay us and I can’t imagine a judge giving a correct decision here that wouldn’t at least allow us to have a factual hearing. And the reason we came to you and some of the other state legislators is because I believe that we’re being denied our right to a hearing by the courts. But then again, you do have responsibilities equal if not superior to the courts to oversee these elections so we’ve made similar requests to the legislatures in Michigan, Arizona and Georgia and we’re very hopeful that next week we’ll get to present to them as we also press for a hearing in court. I think it is really important for the American people to see these are not my claims or Jenna’s claims or President Trump’s claims or…and many of these people came to us because they’re so upset.
These are the complaints of the American people. And I’m more than happy to make available to you an outline of the other affidavits. It would have been impossible to produce all the witnesses, but I can show you that for each one of these witnesses, there are anywhere from 15 to 50 other witnesses who saw the same thing. I have a list just in Pittsburgh alone of 27. I have a list in Philadelphia of 32. I have a list of about 40 witnesses on cure, even though the numbers aren’t ascertainable, there’s still a lot. None of the things we’re saying to you are just arguments. This is evidence. I keep explaining to people affidavits are the best evidence you can have until somebody actually gets into court and swears and…
Argall: Thank you.
Rudy Giuliano: …our evidence is under oath. Their claims are just claims.
Argall: We have one additional question online from represent…
Metcalfe: Thank you.
Rudy Giuliano: Thank you sir.
Argall: Thank you Daryl… from representative Keefer.
Metcalfe: Thank you, Senator Argall, thank you, Senator Argall, thank you, Mayor Giuliani.
Argall: Representative Dawn Keefer.
Keefer: Thank you. Thank you, Senator Mastriano, for hosting this and thank you Mayor for all the testimony that you have brought forth. Two questions I have. First is regarding testimony that we received on the pink highlighted ballots that were scanned through and submitted and then they were able to be I guess re-documented and then scanned through again. Is there any action being taken on that given the number of ballots that we’re talking about there?
Rudy Guiliani: I’m not sure I know the answer to that, but I’ll get it for you.
Rudy Guiliani: That’s not something we ran down.
Keefer: Okay that would be great to know…
Rudy Guiliani: You will find out.
Keefer: …’cause I know we saw a lot of that…
Rudy Guiliani: That’s a very good point and…
Keefer: …[inaudible 03:22:31] that people were just blindly filling out these ballots, but there is supposed to be a process and so…and it was my understanding that that process was supposed to be videoed or live-streamed and witnessed by a Majority or Minority inspector when you are recreating a ballot that is not able to be scanned. So that would be good to know and the second thing is, Attorney Ellis, you had made a comment regarding what our constitutional ability is and so while we understand what the constitution does say, as far as us taking responsibility and you know we could intervene in certain sectors, you know, while the constitution gave us that ability, it’s been explained to us by attorneys that we took that power that was given to us as general assembly members and we put it into statute and that statute says, you know, how we appoint our electors and how we certify the elections. It’s all spelled out in our Pennsylvania code based upon the power that we have from the constitution. You have a differing legal opinion of that?
Jenna Ellis: Yes, I do, and I think that our collective and with my co-counsel here, you can take that power back at any time. And when you have the delegation of authority the legislature can take that back. And you also have an instance here that the law was completely ignored. So even though you have you have a manner in which your electors are generally selected in Pennsylvania and that’s worked for the past Presidential election since those statutes were authorized and gone through the legislature. This is an election that has been corrupted and so you can’t go through that method and those laws were violated and that is the General Assembly. Here the legislature is the authorized entity in the constitution that selects the manner. You can take that power back at any time. And so when the laws were ignored and that’s where we have and why we have all of this evidence to bring to you is to show you each of these different types of ways that election officials have violated the manner in which you as the general assembly prescribed in the law how you select your electors because they violated that law you have the constitutional authority to craft a remedy.
You can take that power back at any time. You don’t need a court to tell you that. So absolutely, and you can look at that, you can look at the federal law for elections. This is your constitutional prerogative state legislature in the context of article 2 section 1.2, means state legislature, period.
Rudy Giuliani: You also delegated it to the very people whose conduct is in question and who’s…you’re asking them to investigate themselves. So given that given the fact that this is your sole constitutional right and authority, you can always you can always assume constitutional authority that you’ve delegated back. You also have a rational basis for doing it because you’re asking them this was done one might argue – or at least that’s one of the interpretation of the fact – deliberately by the Governor, by the elections Commissioner who issued absurd opinions, telling people to violate the law. And then you’re going to ask them to make a decision on the election that allegedly they corrupted it seemed to me you have a perfect right to take that back and make that decision [inaudible 03:26:11].
Argall: Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank everyone for your patience. The public, our many witnesses, our senators and representatives. As you’ve seen today, this COVID pandemic has made holding a public hearing a little bit more challenging than usual, but we have still received an enormous amount of information today, information that we will share with every one of our members. There is no doubt in my mind that we will pass legislation in the House and the Senate based on what we have learned today. I also want to thank Senator Mastriano, Doug and his staff have been enormously helpful today. It really goes without saying, we would not be here without Doug Mastriano, and so I’m going to give him the last word because I know even if I didn’t, he’ll take it anyway because…and he deserves to have it. Doug…
Mastriano: I love you Senator Argall. Thank you for being willing to use your committee to do this hearing. So we pulled the trigger yesterday morning around 9:00 am and look what happened here. And as Jesus said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Guess what? Guess what? The truth’s out there. Media, you should have found these witnesses. You need to do your job. Now you see him out here, do your job. You’re essential to this Republic and without you doing your job, instead of being partisan hacks, this Republic can’t stand. So now you got some information, you got some witnesses with courage. These people are heroes to me as a retired army colonel. I look at them and I say, you guys are outstanding. Thanks for being a little step up, because I am cognizant that the so-called tolerant people on the left will not show much love or tolerance to people they disagree with. And so thank you for standing ’cause you’re warriors, being able to stand for and save this Republic. So thank you for going forward here. I mean, indeed I started us off quoting from John Adams. We are in Adams County, you know, facts are stubborn things. There’s a lot of hard facts out there and guess what?
As history and change in 1863 in Gettysburg, back then, it’s July 1st, 2nd, 3rd, so on this day, history is changing for our country and state, back at Gettysburg once again. I mean, I don’t even know how this happened in America. We could send – 50 years ago – you know, men to the moon, but we can’t have a safe, secure election in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania? What’s going on here? It’s got to be by design, because we have the technology, we have stealth aircraft that are the envy of the world, but we can’t run an election better than Afghanistan? Congressman Perry, you and I were in Afghanistan, and I don’t know how in the heck Afghanistan has more secure, safe elections than Pennsylvania does. I mean, beam me up Scotty, there’s no sign of intelligent life anywhere, really. We move heaven and earth with American dollars to secure elections in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. We can’t do it in our own state. It’s by design. There’s people in Pennsylvania not interested in safe, secure elections and we have to correct this. There’s two things that need to happen. First off, we need to make sure that the real winner is sent forth from this Presidential election and number two, [applause]…number two, we need to fix this, so it doesn’t happen ever again.
You know, I can’t believe we’re having this conversation here in Pennsylvania. You know, this is the kind of stuff I hear about that goes on in Belarus under Lukashenko or in Russia, under Putin, under Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Really, here in our state? I mean, this is disgusting to me. And I watched when I was doing strategy in Russia, you know, Putin’s people, stuffing ballot boxes. The same thing that happened in Pennsylvania. When I saw that 15, 20 years ago, thank God we’re not like that. What happened? What happened? We’re not going to let it stand. You know, I saw…you have to forgive people ’cause we are constitutional Republic, so I’ll forgive those that say democracy, but I saw one man had a sign in Philadelphia and the irony wasn’t lost on me, democracy dies in Philadelphia. Can you imagine the irony of that? You know, where the light of liberty was lit in 1776, they transformed this world where in this very same state a new birth of freedom. And then of course, let’s not forget 2001 Todd Beamer, let’s roll. You know what? It’s our time to roll. This is no time. You know, democracy can die in darkness, in dark rooms with no transparency and accountability.
We’re shining light on this darkness here. We’re going to take our state back. We’re not standing aside in this hour. You know, as Representative Metcalfe rightly said, in 1994, there was so much shenanigans and cheating in the Marks versus Stinson case that a federal district judge threw out the election results, took a senator out of Harrisburg – state senator – and put the Republican in ’cause the election results were so corrupted. So we do have a precedent here federal courts, and I hope you take a hard look at that here. Has our election results in Pennsylvania at the Presidential and other levels been so corrupted that the results have to be thrown out? That’s going to be a case you’re going to have to make before the Supreme Court there, but it sure sounds like something stinks in Denmark or in Philadelphia. I don’t know. You know, one vote, one person, one legal vote per person, and any cheating goes in there disenfranchises an American and I can’t believe this is happening here and we’re not going to let it stand. I don’t know why it’s so hard. You know, I know, I know it’s hard because this has been going on here for a lot longer than we imagined.
But in Galatians 6:9 we’re told by St Paul, grow not weary doing good, because in due time you reap your harvest. We’re going to reap our harvest. The time for dithering and deliberation is over. It’s time for decisive action. We have to protect our Commonwealth and our nation. The eyes of the world are upon us and let’s turn the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from a laughing stock to the pride of the world once again, as we always have been and need to be again [applause]. This is our day. This is our hour. This is our time. So yes, Mr Franklin, a republic if you can keep it. We’re going to keep it. Can you keep it? Can you? Will you? We’re going to keep the Republic. Thank you and God bless you all.
Argall: Thank you all. We stand adjourned.
Word count: 31,848
Page count: 58
[inaudible] word / phrase count: 15