Bryan Geels identified nearly 100,000 ballots that should not have been included in the 2020 Election in Georgia. Secretary of State Raffensperger discounted Geels’s results, certified the election results for Job Biden with a 10,000 voter margin even though the standard of proof in an election contest in Georgia is doubt.
In the presentation with Garland Favorito at VoterGA on Wednesday, February 9, 2022, a special guest was introduced by the name of Bryan Geels. Mr. Geels was hired by the Trump team in Georgia to review the results of the 2020 Election in that state. The Trump team sued the Georgia Secretary of State who certified the fraudulent results.
In the case of Trump vs. the Georgia Secretary of state, the Trump team used much of Geels’s work included in the documents in the court case. Mr. Geels shared with Favorito on Wednesday:
My name is Brian Geels and I was one of the main experts on the Trump v Raffensperger lawsuit, which was the Trump lawsuit that contested the certified results in the 2020 Election in Georgia…[Explains credentials] …I want to remind everyone that the standard of proof in Georgia in an election contest is doubt. We don’t have to prove fraud although there is plent of that kind of evidence. Data analytics itself cannot prove fraud on its own.
My opinion was that after looking at the data published by the Secretary of State on his website that we found enough irregularities and illegalities in the data that it would be impossible for one to truly know who won the election that was decided by less than 12,000 votes and there were 5 million votes counted in this election. So an error rate of 0.0024% would change the outcome.
One of the main tactics that the Secretary of State’s office took to defend itself against the points I raised in my report that was used in the President’s lawsuit is that, what I call the misdirection play. I watched this play out first hand as Secretary Raffensperger hid behind a friendly media disinterested in actually the claims made in the President’s lawsuit during the months that followed the election. I know this because the claims made in my affidavit were and still are public. And there were a bunch of media companies who wrote news articles about my expert testimonty [media listed]. None of these media companies writing investigative pieces called me to ask for context or comment and yet they still used my name in their articles and stated their opinions on the matter without consulting experts on both sides of the issue.
See more details of Geels results in the video below. Starting at the 52:30 mark below you can hear Geels presentation and results.