Fact Check: Explaining the Claims Made by ‘Whistleblower’ Jesse Morgan

Morgan says he observed a series of 'weird' events while working as a subcontractor for the U.S. Postal Service.

By
6

On December 1, the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society held a press conference on “election whistleblowers” in Arlington, Virginia, where Jesse Morgan, who claims to work for the U.S. Postal Service as a subcontractor truck driver, came forward with allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Morgan alleges that he drove hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mail-in ballots across state lines, from Bethpage, New York, to Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The Thomas More Society is a conservative, Chicago based nonprofit, described as a  “national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty.” The Amistad Project, as reported by the Washington Post, is “dedicated to election integrity,” and described by the Thomas More Society as being “focused on protecting your constitutional rights by stopping the aggressive overreach of government officials misusing emergency police powers.” 

For context, it’s worth noting that the director of the Amistad Project, Phill Kline, is the former Kansas attorney general who was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Kansas in 2018, for engaging in “unethical tactics and committed professional misconduct during his investigations into abortion providers,” as reported by the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Morgan’s claim quickly went viral. 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
6
By
Comments (6)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Alex DeLarge

    With all due respect, this is a pathetic "fact check." The fact at issue is a first-person eyewitness account of a driver who saw that his truck was loaded with filled-out ballots being delivered from New York to Pennsylvania.

    In response you simply say: "There is no evidence to suggest that his claim is true."

    But that is simply dishonest. The eyewitness testimony *is the evidence.* This guy signed an affidavit and before you call him a lying perjurer you really need to have some way to disprove any specific fact that he testified to.

    This could have been done by interviewing his supervisor, tracing the cargo manifest, and tracking down the origin and movements of the shipment, finding out who paid for it. Etc., etc. In short, actual investigation.

    The fact that no one even attempted to do any of this is, itself, evidence that his claims cannot be disproved. they were worried the results would support fraud.

    Everything cited in the "fact check" is a bunch of generalized hearsay conclusions that don't address the specific testimony. I really hate these lame and dishonest "fact checks." I don't know why people act as if you have disproved anything.

    Collapse
  2. Tim

    I don't see this article as a "fact check." Instead, it quotes Pennsylvania election officials who claim that any PA ballots that were brought into PA were proper. That is a conclusion, not a fact.
    Frankly, the article does not answer the following questions assuming that Morgan's truck was carrying PA election ballots; (2) how many were there; (3) which election facility received the ballots; (3) why weren't they mailed to PA where a PA USPS worker have taken them to an election center; (4) were these ballots counted; and (5) were the ballots subjected to proper verification procedures. These are just a few initial questions that I thought of. Morgan's statement does not constitute any significant evidence of fraud, but it is significant enough to warrant further investigation. The Lancaster DA's office admitted that it became aware of the allegation, but did not investigate it because they were not asked to do so by Feds. In conclusion, this article contains certain facts and certain allegations, but is insufficient to permit any conclusion of wrongdoing or lack of wrongdoing.

    Collapse
    1. Alex DeLarge

      You get it. Perhaps you are a lawyer used to dealing with actual evidence. It's so discouraging to see the gullibility and lack of critical thinking that results just because someone puts the label "fact check" on top of their opinion.

      Collapse
  3. David Potts

    As a resident of Lancaster County, I thoroughly enjoyed our brief stint as the Area 51 of election fraud conspiracy theories.

    Collapse
  4. Mark

    I like how in our world of ubiquitous cell phones with cameras, this USPS driver never thought to document this "irregularity" by taking photos of these illegal ballots as proof.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Hmmm I remember the trucker claim.

    We are really going to need an place for all the election fact checks to be put together for future references if possible, since I doubt the election fraud theory is going away in the short term. There’s just so many of them.

    Thanks for the fact check.

    Collapse