Court filings show federal agents acted on activist claims long rejected by state officials; probe cites record-keeping lapses, not new evidence of outcome-altering fraud.
According to affidavits submitted by FBI Special Agent Hugh Evans, agents sought and received approval from U.S. Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas to take custody of the ballots and related materials last month. The filings, made public Tuesday, do not describe new evidence of vote manipulation or outcome-altering fraud. Instead, they detail alleged procedural irregularities in ballot tabulation and the preservation of digital scans and tally records.
Evans argued that departures from election protocols could establish probable cause that two federal statutes were violated—one governing election fraud and another requiring preservation of federal election records for at least 22 months after Election Day. However, the affidavits attribute any potential violations to “unknown persons” and do not allege partisan intent.
The investigation appears to have originated with a referral from attorney Kurt Olsen, an ally of former President Donald Trump, who was appointed in October as the White House’s “director of election security and integrity.” Olsen was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 results and was among those in contact with Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress met to certify the election won by Joe Biden.
The unsealing of the affidavits comes as Trump has renewed false claims that he prevailed in Georgia in 2020—a state Biden carried by fewer than 12,000 votes. Multiple recounts, audits, and court challenges previously upheld the certified results.
Fulton County officials have acknowledged that not all digital ballot scans and related tally files were retained, but they maintain that the original paper ballots were preserved and that any record-keeping lapses were inadvertent. Officials have argued the missing digital records have no bearing on the certified outcome.
Evans’ filings stop short of asserting that the alleged deficiencies altered the election’s results. Instead, he wrote that intentional failures to preserve required records or to ensure fair tabulation could constitute federal crimes regardless of whether the outcome of a specific race was affected.
The decision to authorize the seizure underscores the extraordinary legal posture of the case. Federal courts rarely approve wholesale ballot seizures years after an election has concluded, particularly in the absence of evidence that the result was compromised.
Political reaction was swift. Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey warned that the federal probe could embolden the Georgia State Election Board to attempt a takeover of Fulton County’s election administration—a move that would likely trigger litigation. “That’s a very real threat,” Bailey said Tuesday. “As silly as some of those people are, this is also dangerous.”
The filings indicate that activists’ complaints—some of them previously presented to the Georgia State Election Board—formed a substantial portion of the evidentiary basis for the warrant application. Among the individuals referenced is Kevin Moncla, a Texas-based activist who has repeatedly alleged ballot irregularities in Georgia.
U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee agreed that the names of certain non-government witnesses could be redacted from public versions of the affidavits, though many identities were apparent from context.
Legal experts note that the threshold for probable cause is lower than that required for prosecution. Still, the sweeping nature of the seizure—and its political backdrop—ensures that the case will be closely watched. The investigation’s scope, timeline, and potential targets remain unclear.
More broadly, the episode underscores the enduring volatility surrounding the 2020 election and the continued effort by some political actors to relitigate its administration nearly four years later. Whether the FBI’s inquiry yields criminal charges—or further fuels partisan mistrust—may depend less on the allegations themselves and more on how federal authorities navigate the fraught intersection of election law and political power.
======
-- By Frank Atkinson
Andre Leday contributed to this report.
© 2026 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment