Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 August 9, 2021

To: Distribution [Politicians, Media, Potentially-Interested Persons]

Re: Pennsylvania “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART LV] –Diamond on Bannon?
{}

I wrote this e-mail in the middle-of-the-night as a proposal that could jump-start educating the
immediate-world about the PA-specific aberrations/fraud, prompting Corman to get crackin’;
recall I reported Russ had detailed some of these data (invoking cues from his cell-‘phone) during
a (~ ½ hour) speech delivered a month ago @ the packed-house @ the Rising Sun Inn (Telford).

I haven't discussed this with Russ, but it struck me that there's a method to get the
"receipts" out there via Bannon's posse without my appearing ego-centric/
obsessed.

Russ spoke for a half-hour @ the Rising Sun Inn get-together last month, listing
the aberrations/fraud c/o his being on the House "State Government" Committee.

His presentation, of course, paralleled my testimony compilation [memo IV, which

includes direct quotes from him**- pages 18-19] and HE could be invited—with or
without my being a tag-along to provide chapter/verse—to confirm my mantra that
PA-specific aberrations/fraud have already been CONFESSED UNDER OATH by
the PERPS.

Per an insider [who is a bcc on this e-mail and who has an "in" with Bannon], I lack
a "position in the GOP" because I'm not a candidate for anything [including dog-
catcher], but Russ has a Tea Party pedigree and could pound away @ the info that
NO ONE KNOWS, and I could provide color-commentary if necessary.

We need ASAP to jump-start PA, and specificity when lobbying/pressuring Corman

is urgently needed [for subpoenae should have been "flying" two months ago, per
my contemporaneous memos]; read yesterday's cluster of 1-page memos for
further rationale

**Seth Bluestein discussed the Philadelphia experience, acknowledging there had been “a pause
of a few hours from processing while we rearranged how closely observers were to the process,
but nothing was shut down” {54:4} He claimed all observers had been allowed access, defined as
“were always present” as in the past. Probed was how “meaningful observation” was manifest
and, recalling initial concerns interlaced within these memos, note the colloquy {72:1}:
 [I]f I'm an observer, should I be able to read some paper that a poll worker is --
you know, if they're handling a ballot, should I be able to see that ballot and be
able to determine what that ballot says? I mean, what exactly do you think
meaningful observation really is?

MR. BLUESTEIN: Yes, that's a very good question, and I'm not familiar with that
phrase being anywhere in the statute, so I'm not sure of an official definition. But
essentially the way things operated at the convention center and in prior
elections is our staff have responsibilities to do what's called a sufficiency review.
And our staff are responsible for making sure that the declaration envelope is
sufficiently signed, dated, it's from an eligible voter who has requested that
ballot. When that occurs, they put those sufficient declaration envelopes into one
tray. Any that they determine may not be sufficient go for a second-level review
by supervisor, and those get put aside. And then the envelopes that are deemed
to be sufficient go through the extraction process where you open up the first
declaration envelope, you check to make sure that it has the secrecy envelope. If
it does not, it gets put aside. If it does have the secrecy envelope, it goes forward
to the second extraction, at which point the ballot is then removed, flattened,
and scanned. All those activities were clearly visible for the entire time for every
observer who wished to observe them.

REPRESENTATIVE DIAMOND: Okay. And clearly visible is different than actual

meaningful observation. I mean, for example, you said the person looking at the
envelope is looking at the information on the envelope. Do you think, is it your
opinion that someone who is an official poll observer should be able to
actually read that same information and you’d have a Republican and a
Democrat who could both be watching that at the same time and confirm that
that person who’s actually employed there to do that job is actually doing the
job correctly? I mean, would that fit in with meaningful observation to you,
or would it be okay to be able to see, you know, 30 feet across the room that,
okay, that’s the job somebody’s doing? Or should they be able to see the detail
of what that job encompasses?

MR. BLUESTEIN: Sure, yes, no, like I said, it’s a good question. The past practice
has been that that’s never been the case. I think it’s a reasonable definition of
meaningful observation if the legislature chose to do so, but I ’m not aware of
any instance in Philadelphia for sure and possibly throughout the
Commonwealth where the activity you’re describing has occurred.

That this was averred under-oath constitutes the most extraordinary testimony evinced during
the entire set of legislative hearings, notwithstanding the countermanding of a lower-court ruling
by the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court. If the observer can’t observe, there is no observing.

This is intuitive and, rather than suggesting a remedy whereby all tainted ballots would be voided,
it’s preferable to conduct a forensic audit to ensure there was neither biased interpretation nor
ballot-stuffing (recalling the overnight voting-spike, for example). There is no other way to yield
confidence that the electoral process was legitimate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
*

Memo X summarizes the major bullet-point aberrations legalistically, and Memo

XIV corroborates what Russ elicited in the House by quoting from what occurred
in the Senate.

Although the three Senate hearings weren’t transcribed and its audio is faint, confessions by two
Philadelphia City Commissioners, Chairwoman Deeley [D} and Vice Chairman Schmidt [“R”]
confirmed that observers were “set up” (no pun intended) to be distant from the tabulators
because of “health and safety” considerations [@ minute-42] and that everything done was
consistent with precedent and law [@ minute-44]; it’s impossible for Schmidt’s claim (everything
occurred consistent with “precedent and law”) to survive Deeley’s admission that deviations
therefrom occurred (for “health and safety”). Thus, confirmed was the fact that the procedure
precluded “meaningful oversight”; per Navarro (680,774) and the 3 a.m. voting-spike, simply
probing this one parameter should suffice. THEREFORE, it may be wise for a pared-down plan
involving a Forensic Audit of only Philadelphia County (mirroring Phoenix and Atlanta). Indeed,
we can’t await what may occur in Wisconsin/Michigan, for the “Commonweal” must be
sated. [It’s “cute” that “Philly elections officials just reversed course and [now,
belatedly] reject undated/unsigned mail ballots (amid impeachment threat),” for this criterion
could be added to whatever Sen. Mastriano envisions, encompassing also concerns raised
in Luzerne County.]

I presented these data informally to a nationally-recognized talk-show host who is an avowed

Trumpster; I confessed I’d initially been enamored of Sen. Cruz, with whom I met to discuss the
Kurdistan independence movement (in NE-Syria), as per the photo that’s on my Facebook page.
He enjoys interviewing politicians who seek an extra veneer of notoriety c/o his fast-paced style;
mirroring the sentiments in this e-mail, I was less interested initially in pushing for a live-chat than
I was in ensuring he gained a thoroughgoing appreciation for the bulk of the Legislative testimony.

[He will listen to my podcast, presumably, after it’s taken on Friday and perhaps decide whether
I’m appropriate as filler; he’s a busy-guy, so he was provided a crash-course and the opportunity
to explore details, time-permitting. Pivotal is the need for all readers to appreciate fastidious
documentation of all assertions, threading back to the transcripts/videos; he is outspoken, a trait
that I appreciate, for life is too short for polite pats-on-the-head followed by electrical-silence.]

I haven’t heard a reaction to my proposal herein, but this e-mail provided an opportunity to give
an expanded readership (up to ~250) the most succinct summary of the salient features of what
was discerned when reviewing testimony; it’s typed in myriad formats to benefit speed-readers.
It’s a bit ironic that Russ (with whom I hadn’t interacted during the past decade) had been the one
key questioner whose colloquy had been so extraordinary that it couldn’t easily be paraphrased;
he’s a thinker/doer, a rarity among those who serve as political representatives on any level.