The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Senate panel wrestles with election questions

by Lynde Langdon
Posted 12/16/20, 05:16 pm

The Republican chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee said at a hearing on Wednesday he believes President-elect Joe Biden won the election, but Congress must still address Americans’ concerns about voter fraud. “When we have such a large percentage of the American population in both the 2016 and 2020 elections not accepting the results as legitimate, that’s a problem,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. “We need to fix that.” Democrats on the committee said the hearing only elevated groundless claims of voter fraud.

Did the two sides agree on anything? They both condemned threats made against election workers. Christopher Krebs, the top election official in the Trump administration until his firing last month, testified at the hearing under heightened security, said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.

Dig deeper: Read Harvest Prude’s report on the questions raised in election-related lawsuits filed by President Donald Trump and his supporters.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Lynde Langdon

Lynde is a WORLD Digital's managing editor. She is a graduate of World Journalism Institute, the Missouri School of Journalism, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Lynde resides with her family in Wichita, Kansas. Follow Lynde on Twitter @lmlangdon.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Wed, 12/16/2020 05:37 pm

    Silicon Valley bought the election for Biden through illegal means! It is time we call out the states with the screwed up election systems and demand Congress to not allow their electoral votes to count! Call your congressman and senators!

    Posted: Wed, 12/16/2020 11:17 pm

    Speaking of questions and "buying the election," it appears that the parent company of Dominion Voting Systems received funding through a subsidiary of UBS Bank. In addition, UBS is the subject of lawsuits regarding tax fraud, and UBS has links to former Presidents Obama and Clinton.

    Unusual Fundraising Behind Dominion Ownership (
    UBS Fraud Reveals Ties With Clinton, Obama (

    This is part of the information included in the video: 2020 Election Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America? (links in my comment below) 

    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 03:34 pm

    They didn't get much for their money's worth, since Trump outperformed his 2016 numbers in the cities where they they invested. 

    Posted: Wed, 12/16/2020 11:12 pm

    I've just watched a sobering video that concludes with a challenge: “At this critical moment, Americans need to come together to take a stand against fraud and in favor of truth. To choose freedom over communism, and good over evil.” Two ways to access it:

    2020 Election Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America? (

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 04:32 am

    Here is a press conference by the Amistad Project where they release their report on the dark money supplied by Zuckerberg and others to manipulate the elections. For all you people out there that say there is no evidence of election fraud, this video is for you

    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 04:58 pm

    Thank you, Cyborg3, for the link.

    For skeptics: The Amistad Project is "an initiative of the Thomas More Society [which] works to preserve civil liberties in a time of great national challenge." The Thomas More Society "is a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Based in Chicago, the Thomas More Society defends and fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way to the United States Supreme Court." For example, they have lately defended David Daleiden. 

    For those who are concerned about news sources, the "main stream media" and "big tech social media" are preventing the distribution of information from Christian organizations such as The Thomas More Society. Thus, they have to resort to news sources that seem to be objectionable to some Christians.

  • not silent
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 05:13 pm

    I am on the Thomas More Society website right now, and it mentions nothing about any current cases involving Zuckerberg or the election.   I also didn't find anything in the "news" section about a report involving Zuckerberg or the election.  (I went all the way back to October to check.)  I even did a search on the Thomas More Society website for "Amistad Project," and nothing came up except a few old articles from August. 

    I'm sorry, but it seems VERY odd to me that something this important would not be listed in "current cases" or at least in "news" on the website for the Thomas More Society and that nothing came up when I searched for the Amistad Project.  I couldn't find a separate website for the Amistad Project either.  

    THIS IS WHY I have a hard time trusting those news sources that keep getting cited-I literally went to the website of the Thomas More Society and could find nothing to back up what was being said.  Could you guys help me out by providing some outside evidence? 

    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 07:39 pm

    After viewing the  Amistad Project_press conferenc, what is your conclusion about their report, The Legitimacy and Effect of Private Funding in Federal and State Election Processes ?

    (You can also view the press conference at ProActive Communication TV Video Page ( Start at about 26:00.)

  • not silent
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 08:51 pm

    For Hannah, I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can.  Your link(s) refer to a press conference, which is very different from a court hearing or legal document.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to explain yet again why that matters: Whether or not someone says they are "under oath," if they are in a press conference instead of in court, they can speculate, exaggerate, misrepresent evidence, or even LIE WITHOUT fearing perjury charges.  They can also present hearsay evidence as if it were fact and are not subject to cross examination.

    Consider the confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh: the reason he was approved despite the serious allegations brought against him in the press was that the primary accuser was unable to get others to back up her claims in court and other accusers admitted their claims were hearsay or speculation. I'm not saying they were lying (and I'm not saying anyone is lying about the election), just that it matters what kind of evidence is presented and how it is presented.

    Over and over again, Tim Miller and I have asked you and Cyborg for evidence that was presented IN COURT; and, over and over again, you have presented evidence given in press conferences or by the media.  You can present a hundred links to media sources or from press conferences, but they will not carry the same weight as a decision rendered in court. 

    Since we are both believers who trust the Lord, let us at least agree to ask God to bring his truth to bear and to show us all how to live in these times.          

  • not silent
    Posted: Fri, 12/18/2020 10:00 am

    I am on right now.  The first thing I opened had this as its subtitle:

    "Hearing called by Chairman Johnson Gave Platform to False Narratives that Undermine Public Trust in Election Process and Threaten American Democracy and National Security."

    To be fair, I searched for more info and found:"U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, appeared on 'Bill Hemmer Reports' to discuss his committee hearing examining irregularities in the 2020 election and the federal investigation into Hunter Biden."

    These are excepts from the official transcript of the statement by Ron Johnson:

    "In my statement announcing this hearing, I stated its goal was 'to resolve suspicions with full transparency and public awareness.'  That is what good oversight can accomplish...

    "...In preparation for this hearing, I asked my staff to find out as much as they could about basic election mechanics, controls, and data flow.  Much of the suspicion comes from misunderstanding of how everything works and how much variety there is in the way each precint, county and state conducts its elections.  Even though decentralization makes it harder to understand the full process, it also dramatically enhances the security of our national elections....

    "Here is a brief summary of what we did learn: 

    First, multiple controls do exist to help ensure election integrity.  Voter registration rolls and election logs for both in-person and absentee balloting are used to verify eligible voters and to help prevent fraudulent voting. But it is not a perfect system, as we will hear in testimony...

    "Today we will hear testimony on how election laws in some cases were not enforced and how fraudulent voting did occur, as it always doesThe question that follows is whether the level of fraud would alter the outcome of the election.  This year, in dozens of court cases, through the certification process of each state, and by the Electoral College vote, the conclusion has collectively been reached that it would not."

    (emphasis mine)

    You asked my conclusion, and here it is: Based on these quotes, it looks to me as if Ron Johnson confirmed in his own statement that some fraud happens in any election and that the courts and other avenues have confirmed that any cases found in THIS election would not change the outcome. 

  • not silent
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 12:33 pm

    I've seen a lot of links posted re election issues along with criticism of World for not including certain info in The Sift.  I have looked into The Epoch Times, OANN, Newsmax, etc (I've even looked at what they say about themselves); and I find no evidence that what they say is true or trustworthy.  In fact, everything I saw convinced me even more that they are NOT trustworthy. 

    However, maybe I'm missing something.  I would appreciate it if commenters who seem to trust these sources would please explain to me why you feel they are more trustworthy than World, etc.  I said in a previous comment that I'm open to learning and changing my opinion if convinced, and that is still true.

    Whether or not we ever agree on politics, this election, or what sources are most trustworthy, I want you to know that, if you are a believer, I consider my brother or sister in the Lord. Despite the confusion and disagreement about politics, news sources, etc, I hope we can always return to what we have in common: that our God, the God of Israel, is in control; that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and that his kingdom comes first.

  • not silent
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 01:46 pm

    If I may, I'd like to add one additional point.  Jesus chose twelve disciples who probably would not have agreed with each other politically.  Simon the Zealot was part of a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the Roman government, while Matthew was a tax collector who actually WORKED for the Roman government and would have been considered a traitor by the average Jewish person of the time.  Under normal circumstances, those two and others in the group would have probably HATED each other; but they refocused their entire lives for the sake of the gospel.  If people that different can get along for the sake of the gospel, then so can we.  That is why I always bring it back to the Lord and his kingdom.

    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 03:25 pm

    Love the reference to Matthew and Simon! Christ chose both of them! 

    "Though we do not all think alike, may we not love alike?" -John Wesley

  • not silent
    Posted: Mon, 12/21/2020 10:31 am

    For R&: this reply will be for both your comments to me.  Re the hearings, I went to the actual SENATE WEBSITE for my info and read the actual statement by the person who called the hearings. I'm not sure what additional benefit would come from watching hours of testimony from the hearings or why you are suggesting that I do it.  If you want to demonstrate to me that you are concerned because witnesses have testified about irregularities, okay.  But I already know that irregularities were found and that some states changed their rules. 

    However, I find it rather significant that the only ones that are being brought to court or challenged in these long hearings with multiple witnesses are in swing states (i.e., "battleground states"). I also find it significant that  no one is questioning the oucomes regarding state and national republicans who were recently elected using the same ballots, machines, etc. If it's truly an issue of voter fairness, why aren't republicans questioning the fairness and legitimacy of their OWN elections? 

    I'm not claiming that voting irregularities are unimportant.  I live in Florida, and friends and family still tease me about "hanging chads" from the 2000 election.  My state has changed the way we vote several times since then to avoid further difficulties. I don't have to know about every single irregularity, about every observer who was treated unfairly, or about every mistake that was made during the recent election. It's not nothing, but humans are fallible and make mistakes and all human systems are imperfect.  I would hope that any irregularities can be dealt with before future elections; but, if Florida is any indication, there is always someone who will complain about the election process when they don't like the oucome.    

    NUMEROUS judges, justices, and courts-including the Supreme Court and Ron Johnson, the man who actually CALLED THIS HEARING-have said the irregularlies would NOT change the outcome of the election.I hope they fix any issues they found for future elections, but I'm ready to move forward on THIS ONE.  It's December 21, and I want to prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus.  


  • SamIamHis
    Posted: Tue, 01/05/2021 11:36 am

    Despite shallow claims that he didn't believe that massive fraud took place in the 2020 election, Ron Johnson plans to raise objections on January 6. He led the Senate hearings that several commenters refused to take the time to listen to.  Because I have watched many of the hearings that have been held by legislators of swing states, as well as the hearing that Johnson presided over, I saw evidence that is freely available to anyone who chooses to open their mind to the possibility that fraud occurred, on a level that was unprecedented and that may have changed the outcome of the election.  Overwhelmingly, after watching the hearings and witnesses in these hearings, I was appalled at the roadblocks that were set by courts, state legislators, governors, secretaries, and election officials in the swing states to acknowldge actual fraud that occurred, much less refusing to do something about it.  If there is no actual true forensics investigation of what occurred in this election it will never be okay for millions of American's who have paid attention to the trends that began in 2015 when President Donald Trump's campaign was illegally spied on.  I could list all the irregularities that occurred toward this president throughout his presidency, but anyone with any investigative instinct can find them.  There is simply no way that the left or many RINOS were going to allow Trump to prevail in this election.  There are still some honest people in our government who are brave enough to stand up for the pursuit of truth.  If the investigation occurred and no massive fraud was found, I would gladly lay down my belief and submit to the authority of whatever government the Lord raises up.  The fact that it has been so difficult for any of the questioned states to actually submit to outside investigations is very suspect.  You cannot audit and examine yourself or your own work and expect the rusults to be believed.  

    I await January 6.  It will be very interesting.