Fulton County Ballot Seizure Raises Serious Questions About Election Integrity

My friends, we were told over and over again that the 2020 election was the most secure election in American history—maybe even in the history of humanity. Not just secure. Not just well run. The most secure. An impenetrable model for the world.

So when I see headlines that the FBI has executed a federal search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia—seizing hundreds boxes of ballots connected to that very election—I have questions. And I think you should too.

This wasn’t a political press conference. This wasn’t cable news speculation. This was a warrant approved by a federal magistrate judge.

Reports indicate roughly 700 boxes of ballots and related election materials were taken into custody. The supporting affidavit allegedly references record retention discrepancies, potential missing ballot image files, and gaps in the documented chain of custody.

Those phrases might sound bureaucratic. But they matter.

The law requires election records to be preserved for a set period of time. Chain of custody documentation exists for one simple reason: so we know where ballots were, who handled them, and whether they were safeguarded from tampering. If that documentation is incomplete, inconsistent, or missing, confidence—and perhaps the integrity of the election results themselves—takes a hit.

And confidence is essential in our republic.

Let’s also remember something important. The certified margin of victory in Georgia in 2020 was 11,779 votes out of nearly five million cast. That is razor thin. In a contest that close, even administrative sloppiness—if that’s what this turns out to be—becomes significant.

Now, I want to be clear about my posture on this. I’m not here to declare conclusions before facts are fully known. But I will absolutely insist on transparency. Asking questions about election procedures is not radical. It is responsible citizenship.

If the processes were followed, then open the records and let the documentation confirm that. If mistakes were made, then acknowledge them and correct them. Either way, sunlight builds trust. Operating in darkness erodes it.

What concerns me most is not scrutiny. It’s the instinct to shut scrutiny down. We’ve seen lawsuits aimed at limiting examination. We’ve heard the reflexive dismissal of anyone who dares to question procedures. That approach may silence critics for a moment, but it does not strengthen public confidence.

Elections are not beyond criticism or review. Their legitimacy comes from the rule of law, transparency, and a process designed to withstand scrutiny.

When procedures are clear, documentation is complete, and audits reconcile cleanly, citizens can accept outcomes—even ones they don’t like—because they trust the system itself. That trust is fragile. And once it cracks, it’s very difficult to restore.

I believe most Americans across the political spectrum want the same thing: fair elections, transparent processes, and lawful administration. That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be foundational.

So yes, I have questions about what’s happening in Fulton County. And I believe those questions deserve answers—not ridicule, not deflection, not spin.

If our election system is as strong as we were told, then it will emerge from this scrutiny even stronger.

But confidence in self-government requires more than assurances.

It requires proof.

And Fulton County needs to provide the receipts.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

📦 700 ballot boxes seized in Fulton County
⚖️ Federal warrant approved by a magistrate judge
🗂️ Alleged record retention discrepancies
🔎 Chain of custody gaps raise concerns
📊 11,779-vote margin in Georgia
🇺🇸 Transparency strengthens election confidence

The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

The Flyover offers a refreshing alternative to traditional news.

Tired of biased headlines and endless scrolling? We deliver quick, fact-focused coverage across politics, business, sports, tech, science, and more—cutting through the noise of mainstream media.

Our experienced editorial team finds the most important stories of the day from hundreds of sources, so you don’t have to.

Join over 2.3 million readers who trust The Flyover to start their day informed, confident, and ahead of the curve.

Join Free Today!

My friends, what if your snack drawer was engineered like cigarettes?

A study published in Milbank Quarterl, your favorite publication, found ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, “share key engineering strategies adopted from the tobacco industry.” Let that sink in. UPFs have been linked to higher risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. Many are laboratory-designed formulations built to trigger dopamine in the brain. The reward is brief. The craving isn’t. Sound familiar?

Like cigarettes, the hit fades fast and leaves you wanting more. And the same people who allowed this to happen also promise secure elections, wise use of your taxpayer dollars, and worldwide catastrophe from climate change if you don’t give them more power.

When corporate profit and government oversight drive addiction, skepticism isn’t cynicism. It’s common sense.

Serious disputes over presidential elections did not begin in 2020.

In 2000, the outcome between George W. Bush and Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida. Recounts were conducted. Ballots were examined by hand. Legal challenges moved through the courts. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

For weeks, the country debated hanging chads, ballot standards, and procedural fairness. Questions were not treated as rebellion. They were treated as part of a contested democratic process in a very close election.

Fast forward to 2016.

After Donald Trump won the Electoral College, public figures—including prominent Hollywood actors—released videos urging electors to refuse to cast their votes for him. The so-called “Hamilton Electors” movement openly encouraged members of the Electoral College to override the results of their respective states. Cable news panels debated whether electors had a moral duty to break from voters.

Again, that effort was not framed as sedition or treason but rather legitimate political discourse.

Whether one agreed with those efforts or not, the principle was clear: scrutiny, objections, and even aggressive procedural challenges were once considered part of the debate.

That context matters.

When standards shift depending on who benefits, public confidence erodes. If recounts, court challenges, and pressure campaigns were legitimate exercises of civic engagement in 2000 and 2016, then asking procedural questions in 2020 should not automatically be dismissed as extremism.

Elections derive their legitimacy not from slogans about security, but from consistent application of rules, transparent documentation, and processes that can withstand examination—regardless of which party wins.