Today, we sit down with Tony Shaffer, president of the London Center for Policy Research and a former senior intelligence officer with the Department of Defense, to discuss the research his think tank has conducted into election irregularities and vulnerabilities.
This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
Jan Jekielek: Tony Shaffer, great to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Tony Shaffer: It’s great to be with you again. This is like the fourth or fifth time. I appreciate the time you take to have me on. Appreciate it.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s been quite a while. In fact, the last time we talked was long before this election. We were actually talking about election integrity, potential hacking of voting machines and problems in the election system. It seems like the chickens have come home to roost. Tell me about what you’re seeing.
Mr. Shaffer: When we last spoke about this—I find it a bit ironic and prescient, both—that the very vulnerabilities that we discussed were in the context of a foreign threat. Now we’ve come to find, through examination of the results, it looks like a lot of those vulnerabilities were used by someone on the “inside of the wire,” and that’s very concerning.
At this point, the Chris Krebs comment that he made publicly when he was the cyber guy for DHS [Department of Homeland Security] that this was the most secure election, was completely insane for two reasons. First, you cannot go back and certify every single voting machine or tabulation in every state in two weeks. It’s just not possible. Secondly, and this is one of the things I’d like to talk about more with you and your audience today is certification. The moment you have any modification to any one of these machines, these digital machines, you have to have it recertified.
That is to say if something is ready to go, like an airplane, you have it certified for purposes of use. The moment you make a material modification, a software program modification—the Boeing 737 Max is a great example of that—where they made a material change in the software and it basically made the airplane uncertified, and it crashed. So we’re talking about the same metaphor here. Anytime you have machines, it doesn’t matter if it’s ES&S (Election Systems & Software) or Dominion, the moment you send a software program into a complex machine and you don’t recertify that, then errors are inevitably going to happen.
So these vulnerabilities which were observed, Krebs discounted or did not investigate. His statement of this being the most secure election was simply political, without technical or professional certification. That’s why I think President Trump fired the man. But for the most part, everything that we discussed last time, those threats were in some form exposed or used, I would argue, for the purposes of domestic benefit. What we don’t know at this point is who did all this, and why. I think that’s why everybody should be curious as to how these vulnerabilities were used for purposes of changing the election and the results of the election.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about evidence, because one of the things we keep hearing, let’s say in the corporate mainstream media, is there’s no evidence or it’s unfounded. On the other hand, you hear that there’s just too much evidence, and we don’t know how to process it. This is what some of the folks that are putting up the lawsuits are saying. Then at the same time, there’s this third angle where there might be evidence and they want to inspect, but it’s actually very difficult to gain access. There seems to be people that are preventing that from happening.
Mr. Shaffer: There are three categories of evidence which are self-apparent in my judgment. To deny all three is completely unreasonable. First is that which is obvious; statistical anomalies. There are bellwether counties, there are bellwether states, there are bellwether locations where President Trump prevailed and then yet somehow lost. Then you combine that with the Edison Research data. My team, the London Center’s intelligence team, looked at the Edison data and recognized these anomalous spikes in votes—these numbers of votes which statistically cannot be supported without some level of outside force…the appearance of fraud. That’s all we can say. So that’s one category, just the statistics itself.
Secondly, the apparent acts of fraud. The video in Atlanta where the woman’s pulling out containers of ballots which then were run through the tabulation two and three times. This is on video—this is undisputed. I know that they’ve tried to say it’s debunked, but it’s hard to debunk someone running ballots through the system two and three times on video.
Also, one of the things that you and I had spoken of before is the issue of Jesse Morgan in Pennsylvania, where there was mass movement of pre-validated ballots on pallets—pallets of ballots—which were moved from Bethpage, New York, to the central part of Pennsylvania, I would argue, for distribution. This supposedly happened on October 21st, giving ample time for these things to be dispersed to other places within the state.
And then Greg Stenstrom, one of the other whistleblowers who spoke last week, talked about seeing these white trays of U.S. Postal Service official trays coming out with all these ballots lined up, all like they had been curated—curated ballots. That’s not the way they’re delivered. When you put something in the mail, it goes in with all the other mail. It’s sorted through. It’s then pulled out—you get a stack of mail where you start pulling things out, and you put it into the counter.
These things were curated, so that’s the second category. You get the first category of statistical anomalies, you get the category now of potential physical fraud, and then you’ve got the third category of electronic or digital fraud. That’s the most difficult to prove because you have to get access to the source code and the actual mechanical elements of those systems. So remember, one of the things people tend to forget, the Dominion is not a voting machine—it’s a voting system.
Each machine consists of four machines actually, there’s a number of things which go into that, and each one of those machines has to be synchronized. They’re synchronized by software. There’s issues regarding thumb drives being used to move votes around. That’s a whole different set of mysteries which I would argue needs to be investigated.
One of the things that I think President Trump campaign is now taking advantage of is in 2016, Jill Stein and her campaign during a recount sued Wisconsin and Michigan, and in both won the right to essentially do a forensic examination of the digital machines. That was used again this time for purposes of trying to gain access to the machines in Michigan. I think you’ll see more on that.
But obviously, in my judgment, there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to deny a competent third party from examining the machines at the forensic level to see if there were any shenanigans or not. So those are the three categories of fraud and I believe that anyone who denies them is a science-denier, because there’s ample evidence. The only question is, was it sufficient fraud to overturn or somehow influence the results of the election? That’s the key question that needs to be resolved at this point.
Mr. Jekielek: I want to tackle all three categories with you, actually. Before we go there, just recently, there was a lawsuit that’s been filed to the Supreme Court by the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and he’s suing a number of the states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What do you make of this?
Mr. Shaffer: Equal protection has been the cornerstone of a lot of the individual and collective lawsuits of different parties within the different states. I know in Pennsylvania, for example, the use of drop-boxes in urban areas versus rural areas is supposedly disproportionate, therefore causing some disparity within equal protection. Same thing can be said of the curation of ballots. In some counties, curation of ballots was allowed. That is to say when a ballot is received and somehow it’s not complete, in some of the Democrat enclaves they would call someone and say, “Come fix this.”
That was not done in Republican areas. So arguably, could it have been done? Well, probably not, because it’s against the law. But those in urban areas broke the law and did it anyway. So again, is that sufficient to overturn the election? I don’t know. So that equal protection issue has been played out several times and so far, it’s not really prevailed in any thinking at the state level with any party.
Now you take it to the national level. It could take on a whole different attitude because Texas is saying, “You knuckleheads up there violated our citizens’ rights. You did not give equal protection under the Constitution by making sure that you, the legislators, controlled your process. And by not controlling your process, you allowed the appearance of fraud or disproportionate advantage to certain parties.” That’s basically what Paxton says in the suit, trying to protect the interest of the people of Texas.
By the way, I hope Governor DeSantis in Florida joins in because I think Florida is another good example of how a state was very well run. The results were all known the night of the election, there’s no allegation of disproportionate treatment of the voters, and they all had mail-in and absentee ballots. So I think that’s what Texas is saying here: “We in Texas believe that the value of our citizens vote is not being well-protected, that the weight of our citizens’ votes are being diminished by the fact you have other states not following the Constitution and maintaining protections of their voting process, thereby making the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution in jeopardy.”
I believe, as a policy guy, they are completely correct. You cannot allow states to wander off and set their own rules as they go, violating the Constitution completely and regularly, and not see some sort of reckoning. I’d like to believe that this is going to be a reckoning for the courts—which we’re sitting very close to—to actually inject themselves rightfully, because they are the original court—Texas goes to the Supreme Court on this because that’s where they’re supposed to go for a dispute between states. That’s what this is. So we’ll see. But I’m very hopeful that this is heard very rapidly, as early as this week by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Jekielek: I know you’re not a legal scholar, but what are the possible remedies in this kind of situation?
Mr. Shaffer: In this case, the Paxton suit is asking for, essentially, each legislature to take control of its process and resolve these disparities—this apparent failure of equal protection by the state legislature—and resolve it in a constitutional way. Each legislature would then have the option of resolving in some constitutional way, either throwing out the illegal votes, voting on their own set of electors to go to the Electoral College, or doing something else. But anything they do has to be within the constitutional confines of the requirement for the legislature to elect the electors for the Supreme Court. It could be very interesting.
Mr. Jekielek: We’ll be watching very, very closely. Let’s jump to the work that you at the London Center have been focusing on, which is this first category that you described—looking at these statistical anomalies, things that you don’t believe are even possible. Tell me a bit about what you found.
Mr. Shaffer: Our team, our really well-gifted staff, Tim Wilson, Bennett McPhatter, one of our technology digital guys, a retired Navy captain, and Pete O’Brien, sat down and looked at the Edison data from the New York Times. This is available to anybody. By the way, we’re still trying to get the lower level information down to the precinct if possible, but that’s not available. For some reason, states aren’t giving it up, I don’t know why. But we want to get down to the level of where we can check this out.
What happened is, we’ve noticed that in every one of the areas of concern; Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, there were anomalies reported from about midnight to 5 am. The variation is within that time frame, where essentially there was some excuse given for people to shut down counting. Supposedly, rooms were cleared out. We have affidavits on this.
Then during that period, all these Biden votes show up. We’re talking about significant numbers where if you look at the curve, the curve itself shows that there was—I had to do a briefing of all of this to the Amistad group—basically, horizontal lines, good; vertical lines, bad.” The moment you see a vertical line, that’s an anomaly that cannot statistically be explained. So we found in all these places that there are these huge jumps.
In particular, one that I think people can easily see for themselves is the Georgia one, where you have this allegation of these people pulling out these ballots from under the table and you can see the spike in the data. The data shows this huge spike for Joe Biden. So what we’re saying is that there needs to be an official review. I know Matt Braynard has done a review of this and you’ve talked to some other folks as well.
I think that this is evidence—it’s circumstantial evidence—but evidence nonetheless of something going wrong. That’s where you’ve got to link those statistics to events of that night and figure out that if there was fraud. Was that fraud sufficient to influence the outcome of that state’s election? That’s the key thing, it must be resolved. I don’t know if it’s going to be resolved by the 14th of this month, but it must be resolved before January 20th.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk briefly about this too—the dates. There’s December 8th and December 14th. For some people, these dates seem to be critical milestones after which there’s a point of no return. Others are saying, “Not so fast. It’s not quite like that.” From what you understand, what do these dates mean?
Mr. Shaffer: I’ll give you my opinion, since I’m not a legal scholar. My opinion is if something is proven to be criminal, the criminality of it should never be rewarded with an outcome favorable to the criminal. That’s just my thought. If you can prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, even in the court of public opinion, to get legislators to work on this, if there’s clear and provable fraud that did have an impact on the election, of course you have to act. Of course you cannot reward bad behavior.
So until someone raises their hand and takes the oath of office on January 20th, to me, it’s an open issue. I can’t comment on everything I know that’s going on for obvious reasons, but I do understand that the Department of Justice, if they find fraud sufficient to indicate to them that the outcome of election could have been affected, I’d like to believe that they’re going to act on that information, and that would be the critical factor.
The Constitution outlines things a certain way. A lot of these other dates are implementations of the Constitution. They are not constitutional, they’re simply implementation of federal law regarding the Constitution. So unless it’s specifically stipulated in the Constitution, I would argue these things can be varied based on the observation or proving of criminal conduct.
Mr. Jekielek: Going back to the work that you and the London Center are doing, you’ve identified these statistical anomalies which you say are impossible in a normal voting situation. What is being done with that information right now?
Mr. Shaffer: We continue to seek additional sources of information for continued research and understanding. As a policy think tank, what we’re trying to do is inform policymakers, which includes people like the White House, Congress, other institutions, on what we’re finding relating to these anomalies.
We’re doing it from the intelligence perspective. We’re not statisticians, we’re not experts on a lot of the mechanics of an election. We’re simply trying to look at this from an all-hazards perspective. We’re trying to actually be very diligent in linking those anomalies to real world events like whistleblowers. That has been my big focus for the past 30 days, for some level of policy recommendation. That’s where we have to be careful.
We’re not advocating for the president. Let me make this very clear to the audience too—the London Center, anything I’m working on, is not advocating for any specific outcome. We’re specifically asking for investigations or other resolution of the questions we’re raising. So the pieces that we’re putting together are the stats, evidence of whistleblowers, and recommendations regarding policy—so someone can do something.
We talk about it from our philosophy. Our tagline is “Thought To Action.” We want someone to take action with this, be it within the next 30 days, 60 days, or a year from now. But we feel that the anomalies here are too vast and too detailed to be ignored if we’re going to sustain our constitutional republic. People fear that their vote is not going to be taken and counted seriously. People need to have a collective confidence in the system to believe it is secure and safe. At this point, I don’t feel that a lot of people feel it’s a secure and safe system.
Mr. Jekielek: The London Center doesn’t feel it is?
Mr. Shaffer: No, we don’t. I spent a lot of time with the team over the last few days going through all of this. As a policy think tank, we are going to be working on this as part of our accountability project, which we’ve mentioned before, trying to find a path to work on this as a long term issue. I’ve testified to this. Obviously, the last interview we did was when I was working on this to inform state legislatures: Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina. I had contact with Governor DeSantis’ office in Florida.
By the way, I went up to Pennsylvania eight different times and testified three times formally on this issue. This is not a new issue, but unfortunately for us at this point, the expression of this election has resulted in our understanding how bad the system may be, and it requires study and diligent policy changes to make sure it’s protected.
Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned earlier, there’s this question of who is the bad actor behind some of these things. Are you seeing any evidence of this at the moment?
Mr. Shaffer: There’s a couple different categories and I don’t want to take credit for any of this. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook has been doing a lot of contributions to a lot of local jurisdictions, which the Amistad group and Phil Kline have been looking into for years. They believe that these acts by big tech such as Zuckerberg and others to actually create things like “Rock The Boat” and things like that were designed not so much to get out the vote, but to assure certain categories of voters are more protected than others.
It’s the old “Animal Farm” thing: “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” That’s the premise here that Zuckerberg and all these other folks give grants to local jurisdictions for purposes of making sure that certain outreach things are done within urban areas. But other places, the rural areas, are not given the same benefit.
So this is, again, illegal, in my judgment regarding equal protection. The idea that some jurisdictions are funded more readily and therefore more effective in getting people registered. Those are blue areas predominantly, over red areas. Again, that’s the Amistad project, that’s not my doing. I’m just putting out what they’ve already put out, and I think it’s valid. Regarding who’s the enemy—anyone who wants to win and do it unfairly, who’s not willing to actually follow the rules and process.
At this point in time, it does look like, and I can’t say that the entire Democrat Party was part of it, but certain jurisdictions within urban areas were clearly set up for purposes of stuffing the ballots into the boxes, for purposes of running up the vote in these areas. So I would say, at least from my perspective, the urban Democrats in some of these cities. Wisconsin, we’re talking about Milwaukee. We’re talking about Detroit in Michigan, Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, Atlanta and Fulton County in Georgia, Phoenix in Arizona. There’s all these places in which we recognize patterns, and those patterns have to be examined. I think once you’ve examined these patterns, it’s going to come back to the local Democrats.
Mr. Jekielek: There’s also been allegations of outside actors, notably, Communist China and some others.
Mr. Shaffer: Let me answer that very clearly. I believe that a great deal of the funding that’s coming to drive this whole thing is coming from China—from Communist China, the PRC [People’s Republic of China]. Let me be very clear on this—not Taiwan. This is the PRC. China has created a doctrine, I encourage everybody to go out and find it, it’s not that hard to find. They believe in something called Total Warfare, where they will use all elements of power, [i.e.] economic, political, civil, military, to influence anyone they believe as an adversary.
I do believe at this point that the Chinese government, not the people, but the Chinese government, do believe that we are on the verge of being an enemy. I don’t believe for a minute that we’ve all had warm relations because it was practical. It was more about advantage, gaining advantage, and I think the Chinese have done that.
And yes, I’ve taken in whistleblowers who have said airplanes taking ballots from North Korea, that were printed in China, flew into an airport X. I’ve heard all this. I find those extreme versions of whistleblower to be non-credible. I just don’t believe it. Do I believe that the PRC funded a lot of the things we’re seeing? Absolutely.
They’ve made a number of investments to penetrate and have influenced the senior levels of this government, up to and including Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. I’m going to say something here and it may be controversial. I’ve recommended, at the policy level, that a special counsel be appointed to look at the Hunter Biden situation.
I don’t believe it’s in anybody’s interest to have a President who had a son taking billions of dollars from the People’s Republic of China, somehow believing that is okay and normal business. I think it’s something that should be investigated. I can tell you that we are investigating this. London Center had to put this on the back-burner because of the election issues, but we had already picked up an investigation on this in early September before the election.
We’ve been trying to put the pieces together to examine the Hunter Biden computer. We believe that there’s information on there that has not been fully examined or explored regarding Chinese intelligence penetration of the United States. I think any rational person who doesn’t recognize a threat like China is doing a disservice to the United States.
Mr. Jekielek: What do you make of the suppression of the information about this?
Mr. Shaffer: It’s Orwellian. I know some of the people who are directly involved in the Hunter Biden situation. As matter of fact, one of the individuals is a colleague of mine. We worked together a decade ago on black operations. I trust him completely. He’s told me the story of what happened regarding the actual laptop and the fact that the FBI had it for more than a year with the information that he knows to be exculpatory regarding President Trump and Ukraine—it never showed up.
The question is why? Why would a computer that contain the exculpatory information that the FBI had in possession during the impeachment of President Trump, why didn’t it show up? I don’t know. I don’t know why the media’s refused to cover this in any substantive or realistic way, other than a few notes here and there from a few folks. I know a few people in the mainstream have tried to get this out there, but were essentially swarmed on and discouraged.
This is a legitimate story. There’s legitimate evidence that China has been doing things to undermine President Trump’s policies of trying to hold them accountable. I’ve spoken to Mark Milley, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Mark Milley has told me face to face that there’s no doubt in his mind that the Chinese have created a military doctrine that they plan to implement to gain influence and control of the Pacific Rim. That’s just what they’re going to do. So for us to not take this seriously as a national security issue is beyond me. I simply don’t understand it.
Mr. Jekielek: Since we’re on this topic, are you familiar at all with this report from the Media Research Center about this idea that if the general public or Biden voters had been aware of the Hunter Biden laptop and the allegations associated with that, some of them would have voted differently?
Mr. Shaffer: My estimation is that you probably would have had about one third of the Democrats vote differently. Yes, I do. I know a number of conscientious Democrats. I guess I can say her name: Tulsi Gabbard. I respect Congresswoman Gabbard. I think she’s been one of the most honest members.
She’s been very clear on trying to demand truthful coverage of issues. There are folks on the left like her and others who I think are more concerned and more willing to defend the truth than they are of party line. Unfortunately, I think we saw the mainstream media take a side and I think it’s very dangerous for that. If you’re going to be a journalist, while you may have political leanings, you must always subordinate yourself to the truth, and I do not see our U.S. media doing that at this point in time.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump back to these three groups of evidence that we talked about, and I know that we’ve talked about this earlier, that you’ve actually been working on embedding some of these whistleblowers. For example, Jesse Morgan, it’s kind of an incredible story. I’m wondering, maybe you can just briefly tell us the story and the work that you’ve did to figure out that this guy’s for real.
Mr. Shaffer: I describe it as putting the jersey back on one more time to go back onto the field of battle. I really work tactically in the intelligence field I came up in to help the Amistad Project. I was on loan to the Amistad Project for purposes of helping them sort through some of the whistleblowers and some of the intelligence coming in. So I was there for the first contact with Jesse. I can tell you that everything was videotaped and that a great deal of care was given to making sure that he was consistent. There were background checks done on him.
Without his knowledge, we put together what we call a “US Postal Service Red Team,” and that consisted of a number of former postmasters and investigators. We said, “Tell us how the postal system works. Put it all up there for us and tell us how it works,” and they did that. They talked about the handling centers, retail versus the bulk and all that, without knowing why—they just did it. It was a two day process. This was not 10 minutes and a couple of slides, this was a two day project.
At the end of it, we presented them with Jesse’s stories. We asked the US Postal Service Red Team, “What would you make of this?” and a lot of people were shocked. “Really? That’s never done.” During the press conference they had listed all the deviations that Jesse Morgan experienced the night of October 21st.
Sitting in a delivery yard of a post office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—that’s unheard of. You never have mail sitting in a post yard for six hours with a driver burning time—never done. Refusing to open the back of the truck—why would you do that? There’s a lot of peculiarities which we presented to the team, and they said, “These are firing offenses or felony fraud.”
You never put stuff on a truck that’s not been metered, it’s got to be paid for. You put something on a truck that’s not paid for, it’s a felony. You’re violating Postal Service regulations and law. So we did a thorough job of the Red Team, and that Red Team presented this information to Phil Kline and the other members for purposes of validation. So that’s one of the reasons it took so long to get the news conference out. We worked on this for a month.
If I’m going to put my reputation behind something, it’s going to be professional and it’s going to be thorough. So when I was asked by Phil Kline to get up there and talk about this, I was prepared to put my reputation behind Jesse Morgan. And I did. I stand by the words I used that day and I stand by the results of our investigation. I’m back now focused on the policy level. I’ve taken the jersey off and left the field of play for now.
But I can tell you that everything I saw as an intelligence officer was that Jesse Morgan is who he appears to be: a blue collar truck driver who’s got, like all of us, everyday challenges in his life. He saw something he could not explain and it bothered him. He talked to his family. It was reported to a whistleblowing system, and we took him in to develop his information. That’s it. It is what it appears to be. I know that’s a hard thing to believe here in Washington with a lot of the drama that happens, but in this case, it’s completely authentic based on my direct understanding.
Mr. Jekielek: He definitely comes off as being quite credible. I’ve watched his testimony. How many ballots are in question? What is really the exact allegation?
Mr. Shaffer: The exact allegation is on the evening of October 21st. Jesse Morgan stipulates that he was told by the expediter that you’re taking the ballots tonight. He says, “Really, I’m taking the ballots, what’s that all about?” And in the back of this truck were 24 pallet-sized gaylords. They have the footprint of a pallet and with a box on top.
His testimony is that in those boxes were these nicely curated lines of ballots with return addresses, some with stamps—I mean, some people felt they really wanted to get it in, apparently, or make the appearance of it—all in lines in these white postal trays. The trays were stacked, and then on top was cellophane, and there were 24 of these things.
So my Intel guy is Navy Captain Peter O’Brien, being a line order battle guy, estimated based on his best estimates of density—you don’t know the density, you don’t know the numbers—but he estimates based on the dimensions of the boxes and the dimensions of the envelopes, between 180 to 260,000 pounds in that one load. And Jesse’s story is that he moved these things incidental to his normal route.
He did this route six days a week before he got fired—he’s fired now. But he did six days a week and he would report to Bethpage, New York and get there about 3 am. He’s one of those guys that runs in the middle of the night, loads the truck and brings it down to Harrisburg for offload. Once he got down to Harrisburg on the 21st, they wouldn’t even let him back up to the docks. “Don’t even back up. We’re not going to open that.” And that’s where the mystery really begins. Why wouldn’t you let him back up? There was mail in his truck for Harrisburg—normal mail.
And then after six hours a postal transportation supervisor, a very senior guy equivalent to a GS-15 in the real world, someone he never sees, (because he’s a blue collar truck driver) comes down and says, “You need to leave.” And Jesse says, “Where’s my piece of paper?” Every time he stops, he gets a piece of paper from the postal service, which is a digital record of his being there, a digital artifact. “I’m not going to give you one, get out of here.”
Jessie says, “I need that now.” “You’re not going to get it. Get out of here,” replies the supervisor. So he contacts his company and they say “Just do what they’re telling you to do.” So he takes his load, a full 53 foot trailer, with these pallets down to his end point, which is Lancaster, Pennsylvania. That’s where he is told to just drop the load, just drop it and leave.
And that’s where another part of the mystery happens. You never leave a truck in a facility, loaded. It’s against the law, you cannot leave. Can you imagine ballots being unsecured overnight, if they were real ballots? There you go. You never leave mail unsecured, ever. And that’s what they did. They just had him drop it and drive away. Another huge red flag. People would be fired over that. But nobody seems to be able to answer those questions. So that’s the mystery. And then they never saw his trailer again. Where did it go?
Mr. Jekielek: He really liked that trailer. I thought that was a really interesting element of the testimony.
Mr. Shaffer: It’s an interesting story. And essentially, because these guys are out there six days a week, having a good riding trailer, that’s a luxury. They said this was a newer trailer, it had the three axles in the back, one axle getting picked up for the lighter loads, and it tracked really well, especially in bad weather. So, he loved it. I get it.
This is a bad analogy, but there’s some guns I like over others, some guns shoot better than others. Well, some trailers ride better than others. So, he liked that trailer. This adds to both the credibility—it was a good trailer, I kind of miss it now—and the mystery, where did it go? Why did they take that trailer? Where did that trailer go from that point?
I would argue that’s where Greg Stenstrom’s story picks up. Greg being the computer forensics expert, former Navy Commander, who witnessed on election night, the third of November, all these trays of nice, pristine, curated envelopes being brought in to be counted. Is there a link there? I don’t know. That’s the question we’re asking.
I think Jesse deserves a great deal of credit for having the courage to come forward and to perform as a whistleblower, because I know for being a whistleblower, it’s not easy to come out and say something. It’s hugely unpopular. What he has to say is hugely unpopular in a lot of folks’ circles.
Mr. Jekielek: What are the costs to the whistleblowers?
Mr. Shaffer: I don’t know yet. In this case it’s still to be determined. I can tell you, I made certain recommendations. Certain attorneys are now involved. I can’t get into details for obvious reasons. But I’d like to believe that what will be done will be in Jesse’s best interests and that he’ll be protected.
Mr. Jekielek: Tony, so we’ve discussed these sort of anomalies in the data that you’ve been studying, We’ve looked a little bit about these incredible whistleblower stories. Are they being investigated?
Mr. Shaffer: Again, a question I have to be careful about. I can tell you that we did everything we could to vet and verify their information. And at this point, that’s about all I can comment on.
Mr. Jekielek: Overall, at this point in time, how do you expect all of this to play out?
Mr. Shaffer: Well, that’s a good question. Again, I’m back in my policy world, and out of the tactical. The policy must be that we investigate these things. And let me say this for your audience to understand. The people who should be most motivated to see this all resolved quickly and equitably, are the Biden folks. I don’t believe it’s in his interest, or the Biden campaign’s interest to leave anything out there regarding any doubt about his victory.
There’s a lot of doubt right now, when you’re talking about margins as small as 10,000 or less, regarding his margin of victory, and the cheating in some of these places was more than 10,000. That leaves a lot of doubt. So I’ve been fascinated by the lack of interest by the Biden folks in resolving any of this, other than to say it’s too late, or it’s safe harbor. It’s all this, “Well, if this happened, it’s too late to worry about.”
I would argue, again, fraud is never too late to worry about, especially when you’re talking about the policy directions of the most significant superpower left on the planet, and with a lot of challenges coming up. I would actually call on the Biden folks to get out there and try to help resolve this as quickly as possible. It’s in their interest to do so. President Trump has seen a resistance movement from the day he took office, and 73 million people are not convinced Joe Biden won. That is the audience Joe Biden should be seeking to convince at this time, and I don’t see him doing it.
Mr. Jekielek: Any final thoughts before we finish up?
Mr. Shaffer: I think that’s it. We owe it. Anybody who took the oath of office at any time owes it to the Constitution of the people of the United States to seek a remedy to the perception of fraud—the remedy to the perception. Well, we figure out all the fraud? I don’t know. But the idea that people avoid looking at it, and pretend it doesn’t exist does not help anybody.
Because if this becomes the rule of the day—that fraud is okay—why even show up to vote? What should restrain any political party, left or right from cheating to the maximum degree possible? Why even worry about integrity if we’re not willing to take a stand this time, no matter who you are? That’s why I think it’s too important to not address this at the policy level.
Will Trump prevail or not? I don’t know. I don’t care. This is one of the attitudes of Jesse Morgan. Jesse Morgan as a whistleblower said this, and I would echo his comments on this. He didn’t vote for either candidate. He doesn’t like politics, but he recognizes that we have a system that tends to work and preserve the Constitution in the interest of the people—people like him. And when people like him, who are basically apolitical, see the danger of our system falling or faltering, I think it’s important for all of us to pay attention to that.
Mr. Jekielek: Tony Shaffer, it’s such a pleasure to have you on again.
Mr. Shaffer: Oh, thank you. It’s always great to be on. Thank you.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.