.png)
One of the most controversial scenes from Detroit’s 2020 ballot count is back under scrutiny.
A newly published review of election records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is raising fresh questions about the moment workers covered portions of the windows at the TCF Center while absentee ballots were being processed.
The new report contains details worth examining.
But it is also important to draw a hard line between what the public evidence shows and what it does not.
The video shows people inside placing cardboard and other material over sections of the glass. It does not, by itself, prove ballot fraud, a coordinated criminal plot or an effort that changed the outcome of the election.
The Gateway Pundit framed the newly released records this way in its current post:
The Gateway Pundit reports that more than 100 volunteers reviewed records produced after a public-records lawsuit over Detroit’s 2020 election files. The outlet says the production approached one million pages and included roughly 155,000 absentee-ballot envelopes, voter-file data and other election documents.
Its article focuses on both the covered windows and ballots processed under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. It says volunteers compared those materials with testimony and video from the counting center, then concluded the official records do not match some descriptions made in 2020.
Those are the outlet’s findings and interpretation. The article does not identify a court ruling, criminal charge or government audit adopting its broader allegation that the episode was part of a coordinated scheme.
The underlying lawsuit is real. An official City of Detroit council record identifies the case as Yehuda Miller v. City of Detroit, Wayne County Circuit Court case 23-013808-CZ, and records the city’s authorization of a settlement.
The outlet says its review identified 746 total ballots cast under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, commonly known as UOCAVA. It further claims that 132 were categorized as military ballots and 616 as civilian overseas ballots.
Those figures are central to the outlet’s theory because witnesses described large batches at the TCF Center as “military ballots.” The report asks whether that description matched the records ultimately produced.
WLTR has not independently audited the ballot-level files behind those numbers. They should therefore be treated as the outlet’s findings, not as an established government or court conclusion.
One of the report’s contributors previewed the story a day before publication:
The new report also returns to the question of why the windows were covered.
It points to video that appears to show people inside the room placing material over the glass and disputes an old radio explanation attributed to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson that police covered windows amid concerns they were being broken.
That does not settle the question of motive.
The Michigan Department of State later published a written response saying some windows were covered to stop people outside from filming election workers and private information at counting boards. The state said other windows remained uncovered and that challengers from both parties, along with reporters, continued to be present inside.
The document presented that explanation as part of a point-by-point response to TCF Center allegations, not as a court finding. It also emphasized that credentialed challengers could observe the counting process from inside the room.
Those are materially different explanations, and the available video can test who physically placed material over the glass. It cannot, without more, establish what every participant intended or prove that ballots were unlawfully counted.
Check My Vote, whose tools were used by volunteer researchers, recently promoted its role in citizen-led election-record reviews:
The strongest official counterweight comes from Michigan’s Republican-led Senate Oversight Committee.
After nearly 30 hours of hearings, testimony from 87 witnesses and review of subpoenaed material, the committee said it found vulnerabilities and procedures that needed reform. It also concluded that the certified and audited results accurately represented Michigan’s 2020 vote.
The Michigan Senate Oversight Committee documented the allegations it reviewed, the witnesses it heard and the records it obtained. Its report discussed Detroit’s counting process, partisan challengers, absentee-ballot handling and claims involving the TCF Center.
The committee recommended election-law and procedural changes, including stronger training and clearer rules for challengers, but it drew a firm line on the central accusation. It said the investigation found no evidence proving significant fraud or an organized, wide-scale effort to subvert Michigan voters.
The report also said Michigan’s certified and audited results accurately represented the election outcome. Any new fraud allegation now has to answer that extensive prior review with records that can be checked and replicated.
That history matters because the latest publication goes further than the public evidence presently supports when it describes a “plot” and a scheme to inject votes.
The records review may identify discrepancies deserving a direct response from Detroit and state election officials. The public should be able to see the methodology, the source files and a reproducible accounting of the UOCAVA totals.
If the numbers are sound, officials should explain them clearly.
If the outlet’s interpretation is wrong, officials should answer with the underlying records rather than slogans.
What can be said today is narrower but still important: the covered-window episode remains a legitimate transparency controversy, a large body of Detroit election records has been produced through litigation, and a citizen review is making new claims about what those records show.
What cannot responsibly be said on the evidence now public is that the video and reported counts prove fraud or establish a coordinated criminal scheme.
The next step should be evidence that can be independently checked.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
