Michigan’s Director of Elections, Jonathan Brater, is accused of lying under oath to a grand jury in a case involving Matthew DePerno, who just happens to be running against corrupt Michigan Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel. Nessel personally shopped for a prosecutor who would agree to take on a bogus lawfare trial to destroy DePerno’s campaign. Also charged with DePerno are Attorney Stefanie Lambert, then-MI State Rep. Daire Rendon (R). The chares were filed on August third in 2022.
Nessel accused them of illegally gaining access to five tabulators which Nessel didn’t want examined for obvious reasons. But, the thing is that they were given the tabulators in order to do a forensic investigation.
In an early victory, the judge allowed attorney Matthew DePerno and his client, Antrim County resident William Bailey, to pick Allied Security Operations Group, a Dallas-based cybersecurity firm, to perform a “forensic audit” of the Dominion machines in the county on Dec. 6, 2020.
The ensuing report said the Dominion equipment examination revealed an error rate of 68.05%, which the assessment said is far above the “allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines” at 0.0008%, and “demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.” ASOG also concluded that Dominion machines were “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”
“At the time we were aware that then-unknown individuals had flown to Antrim to generate the report, and that Trump Campaign attorney [Jenna] Ellis told media that these were members of her team,” Benson wrote in her letter.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELIf you remember there was a major snafu in the counting of the votes. The original count biden won the deep red county by 3,000 votes. That set off alarm bells and the final tally showed Trump winning by about 2,500 hundred votes. That was a huge turnaround of 5,500 votes. I would want the machines examined too. Atrium is one small county. How many other counties had the same problem? Biden narrowly “won” Michigan in 2020, but it looks like all of the momentum in Michigan is moving Trump’s way.
According to a state police report reviewed by Reuters, the township clerk told the Michigan State Police that she handed over the tabulator because she was told to by Sheriff Dar Leaf’s office so it could be “forensically” examined. A judge ruled that only the Secretary of state can authorize examinations of the tabulators.
However, on July 12, McMillen sided with Hilson’s reading of the law, saying it was illegal for someone to take possession of a voting tabulator without authorization from the Secretary of State’s office or a court order.
Attorney Dan Hartman’s Motion to Quash, citing “Prosecutorial Misconduct.” In his motion, Hartman reveals stunning statements that were part of a discussion between AG Nessel’s Assistant Attorney General Danielle Hageman-Clark, AG investigators, and MI SOS Attorney Erik Grill.
Below is a transcript of the prosecutors that was concealed from the defendants, according to Hartman’s motion to quash. According to DePerno, they were interviewing the witness, Michael Lynch (the investigator reportedly hired to inspect the tabulator), when they asked him to leave the room, but the recorder was still on.
“They literally say they are forum shopping, they don’t want to pick a jury in Roscommon County, they admit the witness is full of crap, and they need to find a crime, “even if it’s a conspiracy to you know, commit a legal act in a legal manner.” They were told to manufacture a crime,” DePerno explains.
Ms. Hagaman-Clark: Yeah, one, to me it seems like and I…you know, we can do whatever or how you guys want to do this, but, if we can prosecute anybody in Oakland County versus Roscommon County. Love you guys to death up there but not a grand jury up there.
Multiple voices: (laughter)
Ms. Hagaman-Clark: but I’m not down with trying to pick no Roscommon Jury. Better pick an Oakland County Jury. I’m not going that far I really like Mary BeeBe. I think she’s a great prosecutor. I don’t want to be picking a jury of her peers up there on this kind of crap.
Whereas, we can, you know, charge them all with some kind of conspiracy charge it down here because
down here is where, you know, diddling with the tabulators. I like that approach much better than trying to individually pick these guys off’ up in Roscommon.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Yeah
Ms. Hagaman-Clark: You know, even if it’s conspiracy to, you know, commit a, a… legal act in an illegal manner. For you know or any of those other election fraud things we were looking for Daire, ultimately it takes place down here that at least a part of the crime arguably is committed in Oakland County. We can rope them all in to make them come down here to answer for rather than up there your guys’ neck of the woods.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Yeah
Ms. Hagaman-Clark: I think we have a better shot.
Another Excerpt:
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: that guy is awesome as far as the information giving but its its absolutely absurd that he is walking into these places getting these voting machines and he thinks he was doing this and and its legal. I mean Stefanie is not a police officer as far as I know… unintelligible
Ms. Hagaman-Clark: God she’s a twit, she’s such a twit.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: I can’t wait to book her— I’d have done it at this point…
DePerno said:
“The AAG, AG investigators and MI SOS Attorney Eric Grill were all in the room. And this interview took place while the Antrim Co. case was pending, which means Dana Nessel and Eric Grill (who were my opposing counsel) started a criminal investigation against me (their opposing counsel), which is illegal.”
“And they pulled in my witnesses and made them violate privilege, asking them about the Antrim case while it was pending. And then argued before the court without even disclosing to the court that they had interviewed my witnesses without telling me.”
From DePerno’s brief:
Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence in this case, which was not presented to the grand jury and which was not produced during discovery, is a letter dated May 20, 2021, and written by Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections to the Cheboygan County Clerk, whose County Board wanted access to the tabulators to examine them.
You are receiving this letter because the Bureau of Elections has been informed that the Cheboygan County Board of Commissioners may attempt to allow an unqualified third party to gain access to voting equipment in Cheboygan County, purportedly to conduct a “forensic audit.”
The Board has no authority to require you or any municipal clerk to provide external access to voting equipment maintained by your offices, and neither you nor municipal clerks in Cheboygan County should provide this access.
The Michigan Election Law entrusts clerks with choosing and maintaining their voting systems and does not provide any authority for county commissions to take control of this equipment.
MCL 168.37a states that “a county clerk, in consulting with each city and township clerk in the county” will ” determine which electronic voting system will be used in the county[.]” Custody, programming, and review and testing of election equipment is entrusted to qualified election officials, not county commissioners.
Here, Brater affirms it is the clerk’s prerogative or choice
If you or municipal clerks choose to conduct additional reviews of your voting systems, that is your prerogative.
In addition to confirming that it is the clerk’s “prerogative” to conduct any additional reviews to their vote tabulators, Brater tells the clerks: “only election officials, licensed vendors, or accredited voting system test laboratories should be granted access to voting equipment. If you are interested in having any type of physical review of your voting system, you should contact an EAC-accredited voting systems test laboratory (VSTL).”
From the transcript of Jonathan Brater’s testimony under oath in front of a grand jury, where he is accused of lying:
THE WITNESS (Brater):· February 2021 was when that update was released.I believe that additional language about where it said, remember, only licensed vendors, et cetera, can have access to that equipment, I don’t believe we had previously provided that instruction as part of the normal release of security, it wasn’t new information but I believe we provided that specific instruction because of concerns at the time that there would be requests to make unauthorized access to equipment.
JUROR:· And the memo and the various communications that were sent out were specific to this instance, they were not contained within other messaging or there was no other messaging included?
THE WITNESS:· That’s correct.
At this point in his testimony, DePerno claims Brater neglected to tell the jury about the May 20, 2021, letter to the Cheboygan County Clerk informing her it was the clerk’s prerogative to have their tabulators inspected by an approved vendor.
Had Mr. Brater been honest with the jury, would they still have agreed to charge the defendants? Would they have come to a different conclusion if they knew that the clerk did nothing wrong, according to Brater’s recent letter, by giving the tabulator to an approved inspector based on her best judgment?
