If that’s true....then you have a defendant. I think that’s the point here. Just because dominion had a system that could be manipulated doesn’t provide clear evidence that they did it. I personally believe they colluded with someone to show how it could be done, but it seems they covered the collusion pretty well. Else you’d have leaked emails showing they provided guidance on how to manipulate the systems to provide advantage.
Like the sharpie case in Arizona. How did the commissioner of elections know that sharpies would cause more errors for adjudication of ballots? Thus far we’ve seen an email that she sent that sharpies should be used on Election Day, but the reason for it isn’t there. The lawyers, aka trump campaign team, need to lay out not only the irregularity, but the collusion and intent to commit fraud in order for there to be clear evidence of fraud. I think this is what MSM sticks to, but they don’t do any justice to the clear evidence of irregularities. They aren’t journalist, they are commie scum.
To the point, it’s clear that fraud existed in the election, and certification officials decided to ignore, cover, conceal, and continued to perpetuate the fraud through their actions, and inactions. There was no intent to lawfully certify, but an intent to meet a deadline whatever way provided the path of least resistance.
Dare I say, the evidence does not point to an individual, only to an event. Those that perpetuated the fraud have the 5th amendment to protect them, as they strip us of our right to vote. I’m just as enraged as anybody else, but you have to find the evidence of collusion while they hide behind protection from self-incrimination.
This doesn’t close the loop on fraud. Just playing devils advocate. It only means their was an error rate not allowed by law, but it doesn’t say what the results of that error rate was....only what it potentially could be.
Unless they can show with definitive proof that the error favored one candidate over another, it just means that votes were adjudicated. You can’t make the argument that they were given to Biden without the proof that the adjudicated and before adjudicated ballot was improperly adjudicated. Moreover, you have to point it at somebody. An email from the SOS or election commissioner telling them to set it that way.
Evidence of improprieties exist, but it needs to be....beyond a reasonable doubt for it to play out. This just give a perception of foul play, but does not close the loop on it. Close the loop pedes.
It means fraud since there is no way they could be certified under law, also weighted votes , if they votes are weighted they lied when they did the recounts and everything was good they also broke the law because I’m AZ one of the testimonies was that the inspectors refused to sign off on the machines because of so many errors and vote switching. Yet they went ahead . The completely ignored and trampled ruled and laws and certified fraudulent votes , even illegals in AZ voted
I see it like this: Imagine there was a "Voting System" that was used for important elections. But after one election, it was discovered that the voting machine was basically a garbage disposal in a box, that shredded the incoming ballots and output numbers randomly.
What would the courts and legislatures do in such a situation? Would they be forced to say "Well unless we can prove that the final outcome was significantly different from the real ballots, we shouldn't do anything." Or would they say "Shit, we thought we had an election, but it turns out we didn't, because the system violated all of our standards. Now we need to have a special redo election, or at least de-certify all of these votes."
There's a law on the books about the acceptable error rate. This is to minimize adjudication, which would be prone to interference and controversy. These machines wildly surpassed that error rate. Therefore these machines are illegal and invalid vote counting machines. Therefore those votes weren't actually counted in a legal election. Who gets charged and whether it's fraud or negligence can come later, but I don't see the legal argument that saves the integrity of that process.
That doesn't explain Atrium. I'm thinking it is just laziness. If I had to adjudicate 100,000 ballots, I would probably just click "ok" to whatever the machine is suggesting without even looking at the ballot.
This is why fair and transparent elections need 100% open source software, if electronic voting is used at all. Anyone should be allowed to watch when the code is compiled on a standard secured GNU+Linux machine and follow everything from start to beginning.
Imagine all the struggle people have been forced to go through to actually prove this fraud, hidden in proprietary software. All the time and money spent. And there's still plenty of lefties out there who doesn't know, don't care or outright deny it.
If that’s true....then you have a defendant. I think that’s the point here. Just because dominion had a system that could be manipulated doesn’t provide clear evidence that they did it. I personally believe they colluded with someone to show how it could be done, but it seems they covered the collusion pretty well. Else you’d have leaked emails showing they provided guidance on how to manipulate the systems to provide advantage.
Like the sharpie case in Arizona. How did the commissioner of elections know that sharpies would cause more errors for adjudication of ballots? Thus far we’ve seen an email that she sent that sharpies should be used on Election Day, but the reason for it isn’t there. The lawyers, aka trump campaign team, need to lay out not only the irregularity, but the collusion and intent to commit fraud in order for there to be clear evidence of fraud. I think this is what MSM sticks to, but they don’t do any justice to the clear evidence of irregularities. They aren’t journalist, they are commie scum.
To the point, it’s clear that fraud existed in the election, and certification officials decided to ignore, cover, conceal, and continued to perpetuate the fraud through their actions, and inactions. There was no intent to lawfully certify, but an intent to meet a deadline whatever way provided the path of least resistance.
Dare I say, the evidence does not point to an individual, only to an event. Those that perpetuated the fraud have the 5th amendment to protect them, as they strip us of our right to vote. I’m just as enraged as anybody else, but you have to find the evidence of collusion while they hide behind protection from self-incrimination.
This doesn’t close the loop on fraud. Just playing devils advocate. It only means their was an error rate not allowed by law, but it doesn’t say what the results of that error rate was....only what it potentially could be.
Unless they can show with definitive proof that the error favored one candidate over another, it just means that votes were adjudicated. You can’t make the argument that they were given to Biden without the proof that the adjudicated and before adjudicated ballot was improperly adjudicated. Moreover, you have to point it at somebody. An email from the SOS or election commissioner telling them to set it that way.
Evidence of improprieties exist, but it needs to be....beyond a reasonable doubt for it to play out. This just give a perception of foul play, but does not close the loop on it. Close the loop pedes.
Got it and agree. But....you want to prosecute someone, the proof of collusion must follow.
It means fraud since there is no way they could be certified under law, also weighted votes , if they votes are weighted they lied when they did the recounts and everything was good they also broke the law because I’m AZ one of the testimonies was that the inspectors refused to sign off on the machines because of so many errors and vote switching. Yet they went ahead . The completely ignored and trampled ruled and laws and certified fraudulent votes , even illegals in AZ voted
I see it like this: Imagine there was a "Voting System" that was used for important elections. But after one election, it was discovered that the voting machine was basically a garbage disposal in a box, that shredded the incoming ballots and output numbers randomly.
What would the courts and legislatures do in such a situation? Would they be forced to say "Well unless we can prove that the final outcome was significantly different from the real ballots, we shouldn't do anything." Or would they say "Shit, we thought we had an election, but it turns out we didn't, because the system violated all of our standards. Now we need to have a special redo election, or at least de-certify all of these votes."
There's a law on the books about the acceptable error rate. This is to minimize adjudication, which would be prone to interference and controversy. These machines wildly surpassed that error rate. Therefore these machines are illegal and invalid vote counting machines. Therefore those votes weren't actually counted in a legal election. Who gets charged and whether it's fraud or negligence can come later, but I don't see the legal argument that saves the integrity of that process.
Lacking oversight and an audit trail there is no proof that these "adjudicated" votes were tabulated correctly.
I agree with your point that this isn't necessarily indicative of fraud, but neither can they be accepted as legitimate votes.
Guess who benefited from it... You don't need to, you already know.
That doesn't explain Atrium. I'm thinking it is just laziness. If I had to adjudicate 100,000 ballots, I would probably just click "ok" to whatever the machine is suggesting without even looking at the ballot.
This is why fair and transparent elections need 100% open source software, if electronic voting is used at all. Anyone should be allowed to watch when the code is compiled on a standard secured GNU+Linux machine and follow everything from start to beginning.
Imagine all the struggle people have been forced to go through to actually prove this fraud, hidden in proprietary software. All the time and money spent. And there's still plenty of lefties out there who doesn't know, don't care or outright deny it.