GA Election Expert Uncovers 35,000 Potential Illegal Votes Cast, – Trump Only Lost by 12,670

We need actionable evidence. And then we need action.

Related: WATCH Maricopa Election Audit Hearing: Breach of Computer Systems During 2020 Election, High Vulnerability for Internet Computer Hack, Fraud Ballots On WRONG PAPER STOCK

GA Election Expert Uncovers 35,000 Potential Illegal Votes Cast, – Trump Only Lost by 12,670

By: Western Journal, July 15, 2021:

In the months following the 2020 election, the state of Georgia made headlines for its razor-thin election results, as well as some dubious practices that called those results into question.

In an attempt to quell those fears, Georgia initiated both an audit and a statewide recount of the election results. In both cases, officials said the results confirmed now-President Joe Biden’s victory.

Yet, according to a report Friday in The Federalist by senior contributor Margot Cleveland, Georgia was still the scene of violations of “various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote.”

First, Georgia has a law requiring residents to cast their vote in the county where they reside unless they changed their residence during the 30 days directly prior to the election.

Atlanta election lawyer Jake Evans told Cleveland that if Georgia residents who moved to a new county more than 30 days before the election had voted in the county where they previously resided, “their vote in that county would be illegal.”

Cleveland also interviewed Mark Davis, president of the Duluth, Georgia-based marketing firm Data Productions Inc. and a voter data analytics expert, who has conducted an unofficial audit of the Georgia votes in November.

Davis researched data from both the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office and the National Change of Address database, which is maintained by the United States Post Office, and found almost 35,000 Georgians moved to new counties but voted in their old county, according to Cleveland’s report.

Davis said some of those moves could have been temporary, meaning the votes would still be legal. But, Cleveland noted, “approximately one-third of the votes at issue could have altered the outcome of the election.”

In addition, Davis dove even deeper into the numbers and confirmed the number of disputed votes was approaching the threshold needed to flip the results

“When Davis ran the data, he found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the secretary of state the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS,” Cleveland reported.

“Those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.”

In other words, the moves were not the kind of temporary relocations that would have made those votes legal.

“Davis’s data proves significant because critics of Trump’s challenge to the certification of Georgia’s election results framed the NCOA information as either unreliable or of an insufficient magnitude to cast the outcome of the election in doubt,” Cleveland wrote. “But by updating their voter registration information with the same address as contained in the NCOA database, the voters themselves have established the reliability of that information.”

Davis told Cleveland the number of those cases was continuing to increase and he had “little doubt” they would eventually reach the 12,670-mark that gave Biden the victory over then-President Donald Trump in Georgia.

“Under Georgia law, a judge can order an election be redone if he or she sees there were enough illegal, irregular, or improperly rejected votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, or if they see evidence of ‘systemic irregularities,’” Davis told Cleveland.

While this evidence does not confirm Trump actually won Georgia — there’s no way of knowing which candidate the votes in question were cast for — it does revive questions about the November vote that have never been adequately addressed, such as why the pro-Biden mainstream media has such little curiosity about real, documented problems with the 2020 vote, and why courts have been reluctant to get involved.