Prove that they cannot verify that the date WAS NOT changed.
We do not necessarily need to prove that a date was changed when we are likely having to rely upon circumstantial evidence (albeit through sworn affidavits) to confirm that something they're saying "did not happen, happened".
We simply need to approach that, if they for instance have burned the evidence that would otherwise disprove that there was tampering (especially if other laws required the secure storage of this for a period comprising 22 months happened to be violated for instance).
Don't get me wrong; I don't like it either.
But having to prove something is illegitimate can be exceptionally hard when evidence can be tampered with; but in the same vein, it must reasonably ask the question that, if we cannot verify the information to 100% determine that the ballot was illegal (due to other evidence being illegally destroyed), it stands to reason, that the opposition are now unable to confirm that said ballot is now legal because they lack the evidence to sufficiently determine there is no issue.
Essentially, I can only hazard a guess; but it appears, in terms of the sworn affidavits regarding observation, it is forcing their hand. We're not all necessarily saying that ballots are 'illegal' we're simply saying that we did not have enough security and checks in place to determine that they were legal; as such, there is no option but to audit the entire process - which therefore requires all evidence; if mail-in ballots have been mixed in with 'legitimate votes' the onus is now on the Democrat machine to ascertain which ballots these comprise of; if you cannot sufficiently determine which of these are any more (due to not checking signatures, destroying envelopes, etc.) there is no option but to consider it unverifiable.
One bad apple spoils the bunch.
(And yes, the literal interpretation of that is that if one apple is rotten, the remaining apples in that bunch are more likely to be rotten than not).
It's not good enough with election integrity to default to "All votes are legal votes". "All votes are illegal votes until they fulfill the checks and balances proving that they are, in fact, a legal vote".
I'd love to say that this is the reality we're in; but we can all see this for ourselves.
"Every day is election day" It sure is when poll workers and USPS clowns change dates on ballots!
this is why this election demoralizes me. How could we prove in court that dates were changed??
Prove that they cannot verify that the date WAS NOT changed.
We do not necessarily need to prove that a date was changed when we are likely having to rely upon circumstantial evidence (albeit through sworn affidavits) to confirm that something they're saying "did not happen, happened".
We simply need to approach that, if they for instance have burned the evidence that would otherwise disprove that there was tampering (especially if other laws required the secure storage of this for a period comprising 22 months happened to be violated for instance).
Don't get me wrong; I don't like it either. But having to prove something is illegitimate can be exceptionally hard when evidence can be tampered with; but in the same vein, it must reasonably ask the question that, if we cannot verify the information to 100% determine that the ballot was illegal (due to other evidence being illegally destroyed), it stands to reason, that the opposition are now unable to confirm that said ballot is now legal because they lack the evidence to sufficiently determine there is no issue.
Essentially, I can only hazard a guess; but it appears, in terms of the sworn affidavits regarding observation, it is forcing their hand. We're not all necessarily saying that ballots are 'illegal' we're simply saying that we did not have enough security and checks in place to determine that they were legal; as such, there is no option but to audit the entire process - which therefore requires all evidence; if mail-in ballots have been mixed in with 'legitimate votes' the onus is now on the Democrat machine to ascertain which ballots these comprise of; if you cannot sufficiently determine which of these are any more (due to not checking signatures, destroying envelopes, etc.) there is no option but to consider it unverifiable.
One bad apple spoils the bunch. (And yes, the literal interpretation of that is that if one apple is rotten, the remaining apples in that bunch are more likely to be rotten than not).
It's not good enough with election integrity to default to "All votes are legal votes". "All votes are illegal votes until they fulfill the checks and balances proving that they are, in fact, a legal vote".
I'd love to say that this is the reality we're in; but we can all see this for ourselves.