The file title names the organization "GBI Strategies"; the email body references it only in redacted form, with the agent stating he is "one of the agents assigned to the [REDACTED] investigation out of FBI Detroit" (p.1).
p.1GBI Strategies — Pre-Closing Scope Discussion Email
Email chainJan 3, 20222 pagesGBI Strategies -RELEASE MARKED.pdf
Key Insights
AI-generated from the sourced claims — verify against the documents.
The FBI agent stated he was preparing to close the investigation into GBI Strategies but believed the fraudulent voter-registration applications warranted a full field investigation, not just a limited scope PIN.
The agent questioned why a full investigation was not approved before closing, even though canvassers submitted fraudulent applications regardless of per-registration payment.
4 sourced claims
1/3/2022 — the agent wrote they were preparing to close the investigation and wanted to discuss the limited scope PIN approved into the fraudulent voter-registration applications; after reviewing "Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses" (December 2017) he believed this type of fraud would warrant a full field investigation (p.1).
p.1Quotes the same manual passages on federal election fraud, submitting fictitious names, false information (52 U.S.C. § 10307(c)), and bounty-hunting/per-registration payment (pg. 24–43) (p.1–2).
p.1The agent argued that even if not paid per-registration, canvassers still submitted fraudulent applications; he wanted to understand the reasoning behind not approving a full investigation before closing (p.2).
p.2Page evidence
GBI Strategies — Pre-Closing Scope Discussion Email · p.2
Page OCR text
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WARRINGTON on 10 July 2026 “The “false information” provision of Section 10307(c) prohibits any person from furnishing certain false data to an election official to establish eligibility to register or to vote in a federal election. The statute applies to three types of information: name, address, and period of residence in the voting district.” (pg. 40) “Some, but not all, states permit a practice commonly known as “bounty-hunting,” that is, paying people to collect voter registrations on a per-registration basis. Where it is allowed, it is not unusual to find that this method of remuneration provides a motive for the unscrupulous to forge voter registrations and to enhance the piecework payments they can receive. While this situation usually does not result in fraudulent votes actually being cast, it does cause voter registration offices to become overloaded with the task of processing large numbers of bogus registrations immediately prior to an election, when the resources of those offices should be directed at preparing ballots and staffing polling sites. It also risks overloading voter rolls with “deadwood” names , which in turn undermines public confidence in the election process. Thus, even when no fraudulent votes result from bounty-hunting, the fraudulent registrations that arise from this conduct are not victimless offenses. Federal prosecutors should be cognizant of these circumstances and, when evidence of fraudulent registrations inspired by bounty- hunting is discovered, should consider prosecuting the individuals submitting the false registrations, as well as, in appropriate circumstances, the organizations that employ and pay them, under Section 10307(c).” (pg. 42 - 43) Although, it doesn’t appear as paying on a per-registration basis, it is reasonable for the canvassers to believe they would not keep the job if they weren’t somewhat productive, and regardless of what they believed, they still submitted fraudulent voter registration applications. | understand that proving this was done “willfully” would still be difficult, but | wanted to raise my concerns before closing the case and was hoping to better understand the reasoning behind not approving a full investigation. Thanks, S FBI Detroit
Page 2 of 2