Think about what the Primary is for... 👆

Never give up and never give in! We are winning! You have to believe it to see it!

Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy ballots!

If you were previously booted from the chat, chances are it's because you didn't pass Rose's bot check! All you have to do is re-join the chat and scroll all the way down. Once you see the welcome message to you from Rose, look underneath it for the button to prove you are not a bot. Rose didn't ban you forever, just booted you for the time being because you didn't prove life. 🇺🇸

To join the chat, use this link, then click under Rose's welcome message.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ElectionEducationChat

This is YOUR circus and these are YOUR monkeys... What are you going to do about that?

A Smurf is someone who breaks down large amounts of $ into several smaller transactions to evade regulations. In other words, smurfing is a money laundering method.

Evidence of smurfing is all over the data published by the FEC. Our elections are bought and paid for with dark money by the Marxist/communist loving criminals.

It's funneled through many many donors in small amounts to make it appear that certain candidates have lots of support and lots of donations.

Act Blue is in the middle of the whole operation! (There are several others, but they have NOTHING on Act Blue.)

This MUST be stopped!

Lots of Smurf info coming your way today! Here is a little more detail on the criminal operation that bought us out via campaign finance fraud.

Thank you to all who have been working hard to investigate and expose this!

This is dedicated to a couple patriots who are actively fighting for a higher standard within our elections. Chris came to me with a concern, and shared Shawn's video. Using the information provided and my own understanding of the process, we present to you the issue of insufficient authentication for mail in ballots.

"It is critical to understand genuine authentication, and there is a real need to reveal why elections require genuine authentication." @Chris_Arsenault

Shawn Smith with Cause of America:
https://rumble.com/v29tphu-elections-101-authentication-2-step-vs.-2-factor.html

Smurf Announcement:

Does your elections office know you by name yet? If not, you are doing something wrong! Get down there, be present, ask questions, and let them know you are paying attention!

Tip of the iceberg, but glad it was finally said.

The strange world of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) data: the data downloaded from their website versus an API tied into their database can show two different results for the same query; while their website is shown on your monitor, their data can change while you’re watching it (we have screenshots); a contribution which already occurred can be dated in the future; they double count some things; they incorrectly count some things; they count transactions fees as a separate contribution; they have a State named “ZZ”.

When was the last time the FEC audited its own database? And, audited any reports coming to them from PAC’s, committees, or campaigns?

~ Peter Bernegger

One more update about the Smurfs, then we will move on.

We contacted the FEC to get some answers. Here is the response:

Thank you for your recent email to the FEC’s Public Records Office.

What are you seeing is the ActBlue donations being “doubled counted”. When a committee receives a contribution from ActBlue, they have to show it from ActBlue and from the individual, but it’s only counted once in the overall totals.
I have included some links showing this; https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?202212239574220981, https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?202212089547783194, and https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?202202269493724977.
To get the true amount of donations made, pay attention to Columns B and BU. If it says ActBlue in Column A and Earmarked for (insert committee name) in Column BU, then the contribution will be reported again by the recipient of the Earmark. You will need to download the transactions in order to do the above.
As for the volume of contributions, please note, we present the data as filed by the committees. Also, some committees (ActBlue included) allow you set up recurring contributions.

Appendix A of the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees discusses the handling of Earmarked Contributions, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/candgui.pdf. It starts on page 143.

If you have questions or need further assistance, please contact us at pubrec@fec.gov.
Sincerely,

Jason Bucelato
Senior Public Affairs Specialist
Public Records Office
Federal Election Commission
http://www.fec.gov/
E-Mail: pubrec@fec.gov

Through follow up emails, we confirmed that if there is an "x" in the memo column, that should be excluded because it will appear more than once in the data also.

In the amendment indicator column, "A" means amended and "N" means new. If you are looking at the dates, if it's an amended report, it may not reflect the contribution date, so be careful which date columns you are looking at. Jason at the FEC said that there shouldn't be amended reports and new reports with the same transaction ID, and it should only show you the most updated report. But I think we should keep an eye on this as well, because clearly their system is not perfect. So if there are matching transaction ID's for an amended and a new report, remove the new one since the amended one has the most up to date information.

In a nutshell, if there is an entry of "earmarked" in column BU, it's a duplicate. If there is an X in the memo column, it's also a duplicate.

This doesn't mean there are no smurfs. This just means we need to filter the lists provided by the FEC. They may not all qualify as a "smurf" after taking these into consideration. If we want to be taken seriously on this issue, it's important that we have our facts straight.

As @CoraSolo would say from Audit the Vote HI, Happy Smurfing!

Cybersecurity Monitoring

CIS
Albert Sensors

It really hasn't been outlined. But it should be. It is a relatively new theory that IMO has just been proven by the following two videos:
1) https://rumble.com/v2ba4aw-how-deep-is-dhs-in-our-county-elections.html
2) https://rumble.com/v2hop8o-12-april-2023-am-show-conservative-daily.html

Here are the slides that go with video 1) 👇👇👇

Ballot on Demand means ballots are able to be created upon request (or demand). Often times this is by the election staff, but in some cases voters can get their own ballot on demand, or someone else's ballot on demand. There are audit procedures for these systems, but those are only good when someone actually reviews and audits them. If nobody is auditing them in your county/state, request the audit logs and complete a citizen audit of these ballot which were issued on demand. (Some states may not permit the disclosure of these, but it doesn't hurt to ask.)

Other file formats available in the comments.