Fact Check: Video From Georgia Does NOT Show Suitcases Filled With Ballots Suspiciously Pulled From Under A Table; Poll Watchers Were NOT Told To Leave Fact Check Dec 3, 2020 by: By Alan Duke and Hallie Golden

TLDR: the claimed deboonking carefully selects claims itself to deboonk that are either not relevant to the issue, contested claims, or makes subjective claims itself.

Does security camera video show a Fulton County, Georgia, election supervisor suspiciously pulling suitcases filled with ballots from under a table after telling poll workers to leave the room?

How do you fact check the subjective claim "suspiciously"? By carefully selecting claims and debunking them while avoiding the primary issues and ignoring conflicting witness testimony.

And did that election official continue to illegally count ballots without required monitors in a manner that calls into question Joe Biden's narrow win over Donald Trump in Georgia?

They only address the legality according to an SoS lawery's statement and do not include conflicting statments. They only address the vote margins mathematically. Poorly. Also, the procedural issues alleged as well as the issues with general voter confidence are not addressed which both can call into question the "narrow win" without changing a single vote.

No, those claim are not true: Two high-level officials with the Georgia secretary of state's office and a state elections board monitor each told Lead Stories that their investigations revealed nothing suspicious in the video.

The investigators investigate themselves and stated they did a good job. The writers of the deboonk take their word at face value rather than reaching out to witnesses who's identities are public record via sworn statement. Also, pay attention to the claim that nothing suspicious happened. This will come up again, but only in respect to very narrow claims.

The officials said the ballots seen in the video were in regular ballot containers -- not suitcases -- and they had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media and election observers for the Republican Party and Trump campaign were present.

Whether the ballots were in a common suitcase or official container is not relevant. There are likely many containers that ballots are placed inside during processing. The issue was their storage (out of sight and not with other containers) and the time/manner of their retrieval. (after observers left the room)

Furthermore, the description of the containers as a "suitcase" is an obvious colloquial description that was used as a shorthand even during the GA Senate hearings on 12/3/2020. The writer is attacking a reasonable description of an object to discredit larger more credible claims.

The media and party observers were never told to leave because counting was over for the night, but they apparently followed workers who left once their job of opening envelopes was completed, the chief investigator for the secretary of state told Lead Stories.

This conflicts with sworn testimony and media reports. This claim is not deboonked. At best it is contested. And again, sworn witnesses were not contacted for comment. The deboonk does not say whether the "chief investigator" reached out to such sworn witnesses for statement either.

The observers were free to return at anytime, she said.

Again why not ask the observers for comment? Why would observers dedicated to watching the process simply leave without being told the process concluded? Why would such observers testify under oath that they were told to leave rather then simply deciding to leave? Another contested claim at best.

Georgia law allows observers...

It allows observers, but in practice those observers are not able to observe anything of substance due to distance/obfuscation of their view. Intimidation and bullying are also alleged as a manner of frustrating the observing process.

...but does not require them to be there for ballots to be counted, she said.

Or in other words, it's okay that they counted ballots without observers under the law because it's legal. Therefore it's not suspicious...under the assumption that the unaddressed claims by sworn witness statements are false and that unsworn statements, including from anonymous persons, are true.

Gabriel Sterling, a Republican and Georgia's voting system implementation manager, told Lead Stories during a phone call on December 3, 2020 that what can be seen on the video is normal procedure and nothing looks "bizarre or odd."

Subjective claims regarding describing something as "bizarre or odd."

Election workers known as "cutters" because their job was to open absentee ballot envelopes and verify ballots for eventual scanning and counting were dismissed for the night sometime after 10 p.m. on November 3, 2020, because their work for the evening had been completed, he explained.

Irrelevant detail. The cutters could have remained in the building and played Xbox the rest of the night. The issue is regarding the counters remaining and the observers/press leaving.

Those workers who remained were responsible for conducting the scanning portion of the process, since ballots could not be left without being scanned overnight. He said: If you look at the video tape, the work you see is the work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase looking things in, you place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them.

Under false pretenses as alleged by sworn witness statements. Aside from the general inability of the observers to observe, the issue is that they were not present. It is not important that they were doing "work you would expect" but that it was done after allegedly ejecting lawful observers.

Frances Watson, chief investigator for the Georgia secretary of state, told Lead Stories during a phone call on December 3, 2020, that the ballots were in standard containers, and the work during the time in question had nothing to do with pulling ballots from under a table. She said:

This sentence is poorly written and addresses irrelevant issues. Whether the ballots were in standard containers is a misdirection, as already explained. What work and during what time in question? The footage has timestamps which can be referenced. This deboonk doesn't provide details. Also, it is irrelevant if the work itself had nothing to do with pulling ballots from under a table. That's like saying the work of making french fries does not include transporting potatoes to the kitchen. The ballots were pulled.

There wasn't a bin that had ballots in it under that table. It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table.

Vague statements. That table? Which one? The one with the black cover? It was an empty bin? What was? The "suitcase"? Which box? Do they mean the bin? And next to what table? The first referenced table? The counting table?

As best as I can understand, this statement just describes how the ballots got under the table. Not why they were kept there or why they were taken out after observers were allegedly ejected. Also, it's not known whether observers, in their corner of the room, would have been able to positively identify the described ballots. Therefore it may not matter whether those ballots were produced with observers in the room.

There was never an announcement made to the media and other observers about the counting being over for the night and them needing to leave, according to Watson, who was provided information by the media liaison, who was present. She said they just followed the "cutters" as they left.

Conflicting testimonies, one of which is under oath and the other is not.

Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do. And It was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working.

Conflicting testimony. Further, did the workers ask observers if they were leaving for good? If they planned to come back given the counting was not complete? Did workers notify the observers how much longer they would be working? If not, why not?

In addition, she explained that the only ballots that were scanned after the media and other observers had left were those that had already been opened in front of these observers.

What does "in front of these observers" mean? Could the observers see papers that they could identify as ballots from their restricted area in the corner of the room? Did observers verify that ballots were being opened or confirm to workers such a thing?

Or did observers simply see that something was being done with what could be identified as paper?

Also, whether the ballots were opened "in front" of observers is irrelevant to whether the ballots were counted properly and honestly after observers were no longer present.

Contrary to the claim, the ballots were not in suitcases, she said. The black boxes and bins seen in the video are the standard container used for the ballot counting process.

Already addressed this deboonk. Irrelevant.

A state election board monitor, who asked for his name not to be used due to safety concerns, told Lead Stories on the phone on December 3, 2020, that he was present at the vote counting location beginning at 11:52 p.m., after leaving briefly at earlier in the evening. He then stayed until about 12:45 a.m., when the work that night was completed.

Anonymous sources have less credibility. They are not third party observers (which I will address in more detail). Also interesting that the anonymous source has time stamp information but those on record do not. Well done to anonymous I suppose.

The deputy chief investigator for the secretary of state's office was present beginning at 12:15 a.m. November 4, he said.

So what? They are not third party observers. They are hired by the party in charge of administering the election. No one should take claims by a "ruling party" official at face value. Especially given this irregular election, various election lawsuits filed by Democrats, and repeated claims by "governor elect" Abrams of a stolen election. As well as the sworn statements in conflict with SoS staff.

The election monitor also told Lead Stories that between 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 12:43 a.m. on November 4, 2020, the scanners had scanned about 10,000 ballots.

Here is a setup to deboonk a specifically selected claim.

According to the Georgia Secretary of State's office, Biden received 2,474,507 votes, while Trump received 2,461,837 -- a winning margin of 12,670 votes for Biden.

And there it is. That even if this was a fraudulent process, this particular instance would not change the result. Totally irrelevant. Any number of votes can change the outcome given that multiple instances of vote discrepancies can occur. A 10k vote change in a 12k vote margin is not to be ignored mathematically nor in terms of procedures. If such an error occurred it would throw the entire process into question mathematically and constitutionally.

Sterling said when he looked at the results, "there was nothing abnormal in the distribution of votes."

First, what was the distribution? Why is that information not included? What qualifies as "abnormal"?

Second, looking at the vote distribution wouldn't necessarily give you insight into the legality of the votes within that distribution. Looking solely at the distribution is not an audit of the legality of individual votes. That's why signature matches and other audit practices are being demanded by Trump and his team.

Section § 21-2-408 of the Code Of Georgia, which addresses poll watchers, explains that political bodies and parties are "entitled" to have official poll watchers. The secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

Already addressed the point.

Thanks for reading.