The Election Crime Bureau report presents 18 recommended investigations and eight proposed search warrants while alleging security failures, foreign exposure, missing records and private influence across the 2020 election system.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A newly released election security report is calling for federal and state investigations into alleged vulnerabilities, misconduct and irregularities connected to the 2020 election, presenting 824 findings compiled from forensic reviews, sworn testimony, court records, government documents and other source materials.
The document, titled “An Attack Upon U.S Critical Infrastructure,” spans 799 pages and identifies 18 investigations its authors believe should receive priority consideration. It also outlines eight recommended search warrants involving election vendors, government offices, technology companies, media organizations and other entities.
The 2020 Election an Attack Upon US Critical Infrastructure V2 by yourNEWS Media
Among those named in the proposed investigative materials are Runbeck Election Services, Elections Group LLC, the Georgia secretary of state’s office, Tyler Technologies and The Associated Press.
The report’s claims have not been adjudicated through the investigations and prosecutions its authors are requesting. The document distinguishes among what its authors classify as established facts, disputed facts and analytically supported inferences.
According to the report, 553 of its 824 findings are categorized as established facts, 155 as disputed facts and 116 as reasonable inferences supported by analysis. The authors say the findings affect 12 states and involve activity associated with nine foreign nations.
The complete report is divided into nine principal sections followed by Appendix A, which contains detailed findings and supporting sources. A separate 10-page executive summary provides a condensed description of the authors’ conclusions and investigative recommendations.
Patrick Colbeck, the report’s primary author and chief operating officer of the Election Crime Bureau, said the document was intended to challenge repeated statements that no evidence exists of misconduct during the 2020 election.
“The report is proof that the narrative ‘there is no evidence of election fraud’ is itself a deliberate fraud, as the report demonstrates,” said Colbeck, whose background is described by the organization Let’s Fix Stuff.
Colbeck also said the report had been distributed to government officials.
“The report has been shared with numerous DOJ and elected officials,” he said.
Detailed presentations were provided to at least one member of Congress and to election integrity organizations, according to the information accompanying the report. Colbeck said the document had received “near-zero mainstream media coverage,” despite his characterization of it as the most extensive election report produced to date.
The report organizes its allegations and findings around 10 overlapping areas that the authors contend demonstrate weaknesses throughout the election system. Those areas include voting equipment, certification, legal challenges, remote access, private funding, record retention and access granted to outside organizations and vendors.
The authors frame the matter as a critical infrastructure concern. The federal government designated election infrastructure as critical infrastructure in January 2017.
Election systems are included among the nation’s 16 critical infrastructure sectors, whose physical and digital assets are considered sufficiently important that their destruction or incapacitation could severely affect national security, economic security, public health or public safety.
The report contends that vulnerabilities across election hardware, software, data storage and intelligence reporting created possible pathways for foreign access or influence.
One of its summarized findings, labeled “Key Takeaway (Components),” states:
“The machines contained Chinese components. The data center ran on Huawei. The code was maintained in Serbia. The poll worker files lived on a server in Beijing. The CIA analysts declined to report Chinese interference in writing, on the record, for political reasons. Iran was charged. The E.O. 13848 sanctions trigger was never pulled. By every measurable layer of the system, a foreign adversary had a path in. And the intelligence architecture built to close that path was deliberately left open.”
The report also argues that certification procedures in battleground states failed to serve as an effective safeguard against alleged problems involving records, legal compliance and canvassing.
Under “Key Takeaway (Certification),” the authors state:
“Certification was not a checkpoint – it was a closing mechanism. In every decisive battleground state, officials certified results over missing records, statutory violations, mathematical impossibilities, and canvassers operating under duress. The last institutional brake on a defective election was never applied; it was bypassed, coerced, or falsified out of the way.”
Another section examines the difficulties faced by plaintiffs who filed election-related lawsuits before and after the vote. The authors contend that legal timing rules, evidentiary standards, limits on discovery and professional consequences for attorneys prevented allegations from receiving full judicial examination.
The report’s “Key Takeaway (Challenges)” states:
“They didn’t need to rig the count. They needed the pre-election challenge to be too early, the post-election challenge to be too late, the discovery request to be denied, the forensic sample to be too small, the protocol order to never arrive, and the attorney who kept filing to lose her license. By the time the public was told the courts found no evidence, the courts had made certain they never would.”
Section 2.3 addresses 64 lawsuits alleging election misconduct. The report says plaintiffs frequently could not obtain records from government agencies or nongovernmental organizations.
It also says judges often evaluated affidavits and expert reports without ordering discovery after determining that the initial submissions were speculative, procedurally deficient or based on inadmissible hearsay. The report interprets those outcomes as evidence that courts were unwilling to fully examine election disputes.
One of the most specific allegations appears on Page 72 in a subsection titled “3.2.5 – Remote Access Findings.”
The report states:
“Live absentee ballot processing was remotely taken over. The Election Management System was left on the internet during the count. On October 23, 2020, a Fulton County poll worker reported that the computers for absentee ballot processing had been remotely accessed. The remote party was in control and deleted data. In emails, the incident was documented by the Chief Investigator of the GA SOS Investigations Division, but no criminal referral followed.”
The authors cite that allegation as an example of why they believe search warrants and formal investigations are necessary. They argue that compulsory legal processes would allow investigators to secure records, question witnesses and determine whether the reported incident involved criminal conduct, a cybersecurity breach or another explanation.
The report also questions the relationship between electronic voting systems and the internet.
It notes that the federal government contracted with the Center for Internet Security, a nongovernmental organization, to help protect election technology. The authors contrast that arrangement with public assurances that voting systems are not connected to the internet.
Private funding and the involvement of outside groups represent another major focus of the report. Its authors allege that privately funded organizations exercised significant influence over election administration in selected jurisdictions.
The report states under “NGO Funding”:
“Private money selected the jurisdictions. Private operatives ran the operations. Private attorneys defended the officials. Private NGOs built the voter lists. By 2020, elections in key cities weren’t administered by the government — they were administered by a privately funded network that answered to its donors.”
The report does not limit its allegations to voting machines or ballot counting. It also argues that missing or destroyed election records have made it impossible to resolve significant questions about ballot handling, vote adjudication and chain of custody.
Under “Record Destruction,” the authors state:
“Without the adjudication logs, you can’t know who changed the votes. Without the ballot images, you can’t verify the count. Without the EMS database, you can’t trace the chain of custody. Without the drop box videos, you can’t confirm the deliveries. Each record destroyed was a question that can never be answered. That may have been exactly the point.”
The document separately raises concerns about privileged access granted to vendors, contractors and outside organizations whose personnel were not directly accountable to voters.
The report states under “Privileged Access”:
“In Michigan, only vendors could inspect the machines. In Wisconsin, only private operatives controlled the ballot room. In Georgia, only NGO volunteers had untrained access to the voter registration system. Across 2020, the people with the most access to your election were the people with the least accountability to you.”
The recommended search warrants are organized by proposed title, investigative target and subject matter. The separate list of recommended investigations assigns priority levels to allegations the authors believe require immediate examination.
The document’s authors say the 799 pages are intended to provide a foundation for rapid federal and state action. They maintain that the cited materials create a sufficient evidentiary basis to determine whether individuals or organizations committed crimes, violated election laws or exposed critical systems to unauthorized access.
The report’s source categories include forensic analyses, sworn legislative testimony, court filings, inspector general investigations, vendor invoices, open-source intelligence and government communications obtained through lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests.
By compiling those materials into a single document, the authors seek to show connections among allegations that previously appeared in separate court cases, hearings, audits, records requests and investigative reports.
The Election Crime Bureau argues that failing to investigate the allegations could encourage similar conduct in future elections and weaken public confidence in constitutional government.
The report does not represent a judicial finding or a completed law enforcement investigation. Its conclusions reflect the authors’ classifications and interpretations of the underlying materials, including evidence they acknowledge remains disputed or inferential.
The authors are urging prosecutors, lawmakers and investigators to use the report as a guide for obtaining additional evidence and determining which claims can be substantiated, disproven or referred for prosecution.
The organization is also asking whistleblowers and independent investigators to submit additional information. Materials may be sent to the Election Crime Bureau at [email protected].
Original article
Comments