Thursday, November 02, 2023

WATCH: Democrat Official Caught Stuffing Ballot Box, Judge Orders New Election

By Bonchie |

AP Photo/David Zalubowski

A judge has ordered a new primary election in Bridgeport, CT, after being presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence showing the original contest was rigged

Specifically, absentee ballots were forged and stuffed into ballot boxes, something that was actually captured on video. In all, there were 180 pieces of evidence testifying to the election being stolen.

A judge ruled on Wednesday to overturn the city’s Democratic primary election, initially won by incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, following claims of absentee ballot fraud by his opponent, John Gomes.

After two weeks of evidentiary hearings for Gomes’s absentee ballot fraud lawsuit, Judge William Clark ordered a new Democratic primary based on 180 pieces of evidence presented by Gomes’s legal counsel.

In the 37-page ruling, Clark said the video footage presented by Bill Bloss – Gomes’s attorney – was particularly alarming.

“Mr. Ganim was also correct to be ‘shocked’ at what he saw on the video clips in evidence that were shown to him while he was on the witness stand,” Clark wrote. “The videos are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.

As that last paragraph illustrates, the incumbent Democrat mayor, who originally won the primary, is claiming he had no idea what was going on. Whether that's true or not isn't known. 

No matter how deep the conspiracy went, the video is shocking.


Wanda Geter-Pataky, who is shown in the video stuffing a ballot box, pleaded the fifth when ordered to testify during the lawsuit. One would have to assume criminal charges are imminent against her. It would be both shocking and extremely harmful to let someone go free for literally helping throw an election. 

What will be interesting is to see how the new election turns out. If Ganim wins again, suspicions will undoubtedly explode given he only won the rigged election by 251 votes. 

Certainly, it's surprising to see a judge actually act on evidence and overturn an election. Would the same judge have the guts to do that if it were a general election? I can't say, and perhaps the evidence was just that overwhelming in this case. What I can say is that the idea that election fraud doesn't happen at all is patently false. That's been proven in this case. 

That's not an open invitation for everyone who loses an election to cry that it was stolen. Far too many politicians have taken to doing that even when they don't have the goods because it's good for donations. But it is to say that when fraud is legitimately suspected, the legal system owes it to the public to take the issue seriously. This judge did that, and he should be commended.