Dan O’Donnell told his audience on Thursday he has obtained emails from the City of Milwaukee and several cities across the state in conjunction with members of the “Grant Team” for the Center of Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) that show that in Milwaukee there were daily reports that provided to private liberal organizations on who exactly was voting. Dan continues, “In my estimation, the only reason for this is the creation of a massive, and I mean massive ballot harvesting operation ahead of 2020 presidential election.”
Dan O’Donnell reported earlier on Green Bay officials after they gave far-left operatives access to the voting room and the internet network during the election.
But it was not just Green Bay!
According to O’Donnell, Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein was also given access to Milwaukee data and operations.
The mayors of the five largest Wisconsin mayors were holding virtual meetings on the election in May and June of last year. They coordinated their efforts to apply for millions from the Zuckerberg-funded CTCL.
Dan O’Donnell at 1130 WISN reported:
Emails obtained via an open records request reveal that the City of Milwaukee did not run the presidential election in accordance with state law and instead turned over administration of it to liberal-leaning groups after receiving a multimillion-dollar grant from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. One of these groups, the National Vote at Home Institute, was provided with daily absentee vote data and even asked for the City’s voter database!
Here is Dan O’Donnell’s entire show exposing the unlawful operations by far-left groups in Milwaukee and Wisconsin.
“By Monday,” Spitzer-Rubenstein wrote in that same email, “I’ll have our edits on the absentee voting instructions. We’re pushing Quickbase [a data flow management company] to get their system up and running and I’ll keep you updated. I’ll revise the planning tool to accurately reflect the process. I’ll create a flowchart for the vote-by-mail processing that we will be able to share with both inspectors and also observers.”
It goes without saying that Spitzer-Rubenstein, who was neither Milwaukee’s clerk nor a member of city government, was not authorized by the Wisconsin Legislature to do any of this. Yet he did, and Woodall-Vogg let him.
More significantly, once early voting started, she was providing him with a daily update on the numbers of absentee ballots returned and still outstanding in each ward.
“Here’s what I’ll need,” Spitzer-Rubenstein wrote to her in late October, “1) Number of ballot preparation teams, 2) Number of returned ballots per ward, 3) Number of outstanding ballots per ward.”
Even with this private data sharing that no other organization received (or should have received), Spitzer-Rubenstein still wanted more. He wanted access to the Milwaukee Election Commission’s voter database.
“We’re hoping there’s an easier way to get the data out of WisVote than you having to manually export it every day or week,” he wrote. “To that end, we have two questions: 1. Would you or someone else on your team be able to do a screen-share so we can see the process for an export? 2. Do you know if WisVote has an API [application programming interface] or anything similar so that it can connect with other software apps? That would be the holy grail (but I’m not expecting it to be that easy).”
“While I completely understand and appreciate the assistance that is trying to be provided,” Woodall-Vogg replied, “I am definitely not comfortable having a non-staff member involved in the function of our voter database, much less recording it.”
That may have been a bridge too far, but Woodall-Vogg still gave Spitzer-Rubenstein exclusive access to the database in the form of daily reports. Why? What exactly was the National Vote at Home Institute doing with its daily reports? Was it making sure that people were actually voting from home by going door-to-door to collect ballots from voters who had not yet turned theirs in?
Was this data sharing a condition of the CTCL grant? And who was really running Milwaukee’s election? The trove of newly released emails makes clear that it certainly wasn’t Milwaukee. That on its face is a clear violation of Wisconsin law and should spark a thorough investigation into precisely what other laws might have been violated, too.