Happy Sunday, everyone! I spent the afternoon at Colorado’s El Paso County Clerk and Recorder office observing the machine recount process, which kicked off today after this weekend's rocky start to machine testing. 

After Friday and Saturday’s Logic and Accuracy Test (LAT) – which reportedly flagged ~54% of ballots for adjudication – candidates and their teams were expecting additional assurances that the recount would proceed in a manner they could trust. How silly of them.

Just like every other issue with our elections, the issues were ignored and the media is reporting that El Paso County “passed” their LAT. Everything is amazing in the golden standard of fraud-ridden elections.

As I reported on Friday, the establishment narrative is that the excessively high adjudication rates mean the machines are working. 

After catching up on all the news late last night after Shabbat, I decided I needed to see this operation with my own eyes. Opines and I headed down for a first-hand take this afternoon, and boy was it illuminating.

“pristine voter rolls”

One of the first things I noticed upon taking in the environment was the dark room behind the counting room. No one was allowed in that room, because it’s where all the ballots are stored – counted and non-counted. 

El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuckles Broerman is on record as saying El Paso County has “pristine voter rolls.” With that in mind, have a look at the RETURNED ballots in the county, comprising 56 trays and an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 returned ballots.

Note that they don’t take these voters off the rolls. They will keep sending out these ballots election after election. Super "Pristine."


A view of our mail-in ballot process. It's gold standard. 20k-30k ballots returned to sender. These do not include those ballots that were harvested and trafficked.

These are the ballots that were returned to sender because they weren’t deliverable. The Colorado canvassing effort taught us that many undeliverable ballots DO NOT get returned. So, the 20k-30k ballots is not the total number of undeliverable ballots – these are just the ones that made their way back to the Clerk’s office. 

Let me provide a example. From canvassing, several apartment complex managers confirmed that they simply throw away mail-in ballots for residents who no longer reside at the address.

Imagine a trash can full of mail-in ballots in an apartment complex lobby. Did they make it into the trash? Were they harvested and trafficked? We will never know because the establishment calls ballot trafficking a myth. In reality, pristine voter rolls are a myth.

“boxes are secured with a security seal”

During the recount, county staff wheel multiple document boxes of ballots, sealed with blue, numbered zip ties, from the darkened backroom into the counting area. In several cases, the blue zip ties appeared to have torn through the box handles, leaving the box top effectively open.

Security seal broke the box handle. Top shelf, center box.

We caught one of these boxes on camera , and it appeared that the zip tie had cut completely through the handle, so that side of the box was open. We watched them simply replace the lid and put on a new zip tie. They did not check to see if the contents of the box had been modified. They simply put on a new lid.


When the seal breaks the box, you just replace the lid. No reason to check the log or confirm the contents are unmodified. Carry on.

This appears to be a violation of 8 CCR 1505-1-20.11 subsection D: “If a seal is broken or chain-of-custody is unverifiable, the county clerk must investigate, document his or her findings, and report the incident to the Secretary of State, as appropriate.”

Add it to the list of statute violations. The list is getting long.

“we are just modifying original records, no big deal”

Once the boxes arrive at the tabulation table, the workers take out the batches of ballots. Each batch is in a manilla envelope with a label that shows the date tabulated, the batch number, the tabulator number, the number of ballots (labeled as “sheets” on the form), and the signature of the election worker. 

For the recount, the election worker places a second label on the envelope with the same information: date tabulated, the batch number, the tabulator number, the number of ballots (labeled as “sheets” on the form), and the signature of the election worker. 

In theory, all the information on these two labels should match, aside from the date and potentially the signature of the election judge. 

As I was observing one of the masked leftists scan ballots, I noticed that the ORIGINAL batch – dated June 23, 2022 – had the “number of sheets” box empty. 

Election judge working on a batch without an original ballot count on the batch label.

I snapped a picture and asked Steve Schleiker, a Republican candidate and one of the election workers for the recount, if the empty box was a concern. Schleiker’s eyebrows raised when I showed him the picture, and he said he was going to go back into the recount room to ask one of the officials. He never returned to give me an answer. 

After I raised the question, however, the same masked election judge changed his behavior. Rather than leaving the top box blank, he started modifying BOTH labels. County Commissioner Candidate Lindsey Moore first noticed the change and called me over.

You don’t have to take our word for it. We got it on video. 


NBD. Just modifying the batch documentation from June 23, 2022 on July 31, 2022. Seems legit.

To be clear, I have been unable to confirm where these labels fall within the statute or rules, and they may fall under El Paso County's procedures. That said, modifying original ballot counts to match the second ballot count is not a good look. 

“colorado is the gold standard”

Why did the original batch labels fail to include ballot counts? Seems like something that should be investigated. But instead of investigating, the election judge simply filled in the count in the June 23, 2022 label on July 31, 2022. 

As someone who spent 16 years working for an SEC audit firm, modifying original count documentation to match the secondary count is a massive red flag. Modifying original documentation to match a second count that is meant to verify that original documentation looks like a cover up.

It looks like fraud. 

Why would we expect anything else from the gold standard of the election fraud test kitchen?

Recounts around the state begin tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Want to hear more from me? Tune into @conservativedaily, 10MT/12ET every Monday through Friday, on LindellTV, Rumble and everywhere else you get your podcasts! Text "Freedom" to 89517 to get my daily story and call to action to fax Congress with your daily redress of grievances!

If you’re not yet in the fight to save America, why not? Get involved locally in your community today.