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.
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.
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.