Much of what is presented below comes from the excellent work of Kevin Moncla
The Georgia audit held in November 2020 after the election that provided the corrupt Secretary of State support that the election in his state was fine was not fine itself. Some damaging information provided through an FOIA request verifies this.
In January, it was discovered that the firms which were selected by Maricopa County in Arizona to perform audits of the 2020 Election were not certified at the time they were selected by the county as had been declared.
One of these firms which were picked by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to perform the audit there for the country was also selected by corrupt Brad Raffensperger in Georgia in November 2020 to perform an audit there after the early election in November. That means that the audit there was not performed by a certified auditor, because Pro V&V was not certified then. This clean audit opinion was given without looking at the ballots from the election.
In January 2021, we also wrote much about Pro V&V after they performed their audit in Georgia.
Here is the report from Kevin Moncla:
We attempted to review the Georgia forensic audit by Pro V&V that Secretary of State Raffensperger so proudly championed had confirmed the election results, something strange happened.
Every Georgia audit reference or link led to the same Georgia Secretary of State page with Raffensperger’s statement summarizing the perfect results of the audit:
Yet the actual audit report by Pro V&V could not be found anywhere. After an exhaustive search, and in disbelief that the audit report had gone unpublished, we submitted an FOIA request to the state of Georgia for records of the audit. Specifically, our request included the following:
Under the Georgia Open Records Act § 50.18.70 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that detail the results, contract, scope, and report of the audit that the Secretary of State contracted or directed Pro V&V to perform on the Dominion Voting equipment and machines after the 2020 general election. Please include the names of the individuals who physically performed the audit and any scope of work they were and were not permitted or allowed to perform that may be missing from the report and the reason. “
What was returned in response to the FOIA request by the state of Georgia is bizarre and cannot be easily explained. Three documents were attached to the email:
- “Memo for field audit.pdf” Presumably a memo from Pro V&V outlining the details of the work as requested by the Secretary of State.
- “Re Memo Audit for Review_redacted.pdf” An email from the GA Secretary of State’s office approving the work detailed in the Pro V&V memo.
- “Field Audit Report Final 1.1.pdf” The resulting Pro V&V audit report. When reviewing the “Memo for Field Audit”, we noticed a little problem. The date of the memo is “Friday, July 16, 2021”:
We then confirmed that this email was indeed from Jack Cobb.
Not only was the memo created last Friday, but It was created last Friday by Pro V&V’s owner, Jack Cobb.
This revelation leaves little possibility for any plausible explanation other than the Georgia Secretary of State’s office contacted Pro V&V who created the memo to provide in response to our FOIA request.
The second document we received, “Re Memo Audit for Review redacted.pdf”, is purportedly an email from the Office of the Secretary of State approving the work proposed by Pro V&V in the memo above. The relevant portion approving the work:
The third and final file, “Field Audit Report Final 1.1.pdf”, is supposedly the field audit results. Six pages in total, nearly 5 of which are standard definitions of terminology and voting system components:
Note that the report states components were evaluated “among six (6) counties”, but the Memo outlining the work, (which was approved as proposed) says “…components in the four locations”.
Not only was the audit performed by an uncertified vendor at the time, but the report also states that both four and six counties were selected for review in their audit. The firm looked at no ballots.
To think that Pro V&V looked at only a few machines and no ballots to make their decision is shameful.