See especially:
Chapter 6: Wisconsin Election Officials’ Widespread Use of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Facially Violated Wisconsin Law.
Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Unlawfully Directed Clerks to Violate Rules Protecting Nursing Home Residents, Resulting in a 100% Voting Rate in Many Nursing Homes in 2020, Including Many Ineligible Voters.
The author, Former Supreme Court justice Mike Gableman, concludes:
"This Report has documented not just one, but a great collection of Wisconsin election law violations. As a political matter, the actions of state actors certifying electors in any Presidential election can be reconsidered as the Wisconsin Legislature sees fit using its plenary power under Article II of the federal Constitution, as recognized in McPherson and Bush v. Gore. Indeed, McPherson noted that “there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time.” McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35 (emphasis added)..."
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/22/brandtjen/media/1552...
I hope the MSM will pay due attention to the issues that this report identified.
In Milwaukee County, 30 nursing homes vetted, 1084 registered voters, 1084 votes, 100%
In Racine County, 12 nursing homes vetted, 348 registered voters, 348 votes, 100%
In Dane County, 24 nursing homes vetted, 723 registered voters, 723 votes, 100%
Etc.
An exemplar of the problem is detailed in the case filed in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, by one Paul Archambault on behalf of his mother, "Jane Doe", who was "adjudicated as incompetent by the Waukesha County Circuit Court due to a degenerative brain disorder on June 23, 2015." But, it was discovered that, "Jane Doe had cast ballots in the August 11, 2020 Partisan Primary, and the November2020 General Election".
https://empowerwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Summ...
It doesn't "prove" a stolen election but it does raise suspicions.
The "ballot harvesting" video was debunked thoroughly in a matter of hours after it was released.
I'm not familiar with ballot harvesting.
> It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
The left was screaming about Trump directly colluding with the Russians. When the facts came out and it was clear he didn't collude, the goal posts shifted to "well the Russian troll farms helped Trump win!"
That's not collusion.
> Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity
If you want to understand more, there is a summary of "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" in the Wikipedia article about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"[0], including this section, for example:
> In the email, Goldstone said the information had come from the Russian government and "was part of a Russian government effort to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign". Trump Jr. replied with an e-mail saying "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer" and arranged the meeting. Trump Jr. went to the meeting expecting to receive information harmful to the Clinton campaign, but he said none was forthcoming, and instead the conversation then turned to [US sanctions against Russia]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Not really, no.
From your own source:
"The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."
It literally states there was no evidence of collision or conspiracy.
> Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions"
Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that:
> On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does" and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.
and:
> In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.
so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump.
The article summary concludes:
> In 2020, a Republican-appointed federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump.
In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia.
Yes it does, it links to the Mueller Report Wikipedia page that directly states:
"Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.""
With several linked sources.
>Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that:
And? There were multiple Democrats in the special counsel that also did not find any collision.
"On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction ... Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office."
Obstruction is not collusion. I can hear the goalposts screeching from here.
>so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump.
And no one, not any of the state or federal ADAs/AGs/etc. brought any charges up for collision... because there was no evidence of it as reported by Mueller. QED.
>In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia.
And also found nothing.
I'll say it again: There is no evidence that Trump and Co. colluded with the Russians.
What you believe is an Alex Jones level conspiracy theory that just so happens to be politically expedient to believe.