last one, but that doesn't say much."
So when I'm—I'm melding a couple of different things together here. I took Jeff Rosen's comment, "Can you believe this? I'm not going to respond to the message below," to be a commentary on the fact that someone in the White House believed Jeff Clark should be involved in these things.
The issue about signature matching, that might be a legitimate issue. It might give rise to some concern about whether there was criminal conduct in an election. So, when I say "at least it's better than the last one," at least this isn't some fanciful notion of Italian satellites changing votes in the Midwest. Signature verifications are something that routinely happen after elections, and that's what I'm saying when I say "at least it's better than the last one."
Q Yeah.
A So I'm mixing and matching a little bit off of his comment. His comment I took to be a reference to the Jeff Clark issue, and mine is more of a comparison of signature matches to Italian satellites.
Q I see.
And, at that point, Mr. Donoghue, had the Department already evaluated signature matches and any anomalies in Fulton County and resolved that as not sufficient to cause concern?
A I think we left that to the civil litigants. And I don't think there was anything that raised a sufficient question about signature matching in Fulton County to warrant any sort of criminal review by the Department.
I could be wrong about that. The U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Georgia would have a better idea. But I don't recall the FBI or anyone else looking at signature matching in Georgia.
