Good morning
You aren't supposed to discard ballots, you're supposed to hit the discard button, which discards the existing tally. You are supposed to put the already scanned ballots back in the queue and the testimony covers that.
Watch it again, pay closer attention.
they would 'discard' THE ENIRE BATCH ...
ie the tally, not the subset of scanned ballots
... then rescan it
Here is testimony from a different day
When a ballot jams it will put up and error, it will SAY 'Discard' or 'Rescan'
Buttons on the screen
when that occurs the correct way to go about it is to 'discard' (button) the whole batch, take the ones that already scanned, put them back into the pile, put the one that jammed on top, discard, discard the whole thing, then rescan them
Do you understand now?
You can’t see the screen and don’t know where the buttons are or what’s she pushing.
No shit. That's the point. The video is evidence of a jam, not of fraud. Nothing in the video is contrary to the normal legitimate way of addressing the situation. It is certainly possible that she is committing fraud, BUT THIS VIDEO IS NOT EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.
I have no interest in stealing from the insurance holding paying customer behind me, so no, I won't do that.
Agree.
Licenses have a role, but they are too often used to carve monopolies through limits and stifle diversity by picking and choosing methods that are supposed to be left to the consumer.
I appreciate your experience with your office copier.
But as someone with seven years as a print technician running everything from commercial printers, to docutechs, web fed presses, and million dolor (then state of the art) digital presses you're just wrong. Not because your experience is wrong, but because it is limited.
Jams also include non feeds, double feeds, delayed feeds, misalignment, misscans, uninterpretable scans and any number of sensor issues pertaining to the above. Your office printer is printing, not scanning, and when it is scanning, it does not care how things are aligned, it's not trying to match up tracking markers along an edge and locate specific tracking details within those margins.
I'm telling you, there are tons of errors that are going to result in the offending ballot passing through uncrumpled that are still going to be called a 'jam'. It's a catchall term used for anything that haults a machine.
"Why is the docutech down, I don't know it's jammed I'll go check."
But more to the point, it's the term used by witness testimony and I have no problem using it here either. If you can't get passed your limited experience with what a jam constitutes, then discards the term and we'll move on.
The tabulator stops all on it's own, in the middle, without any user input. That's the 'jam'. It errors out and prompts the user to discard or rescan. When encountering this issue, protocol is to take the scanned ballots, put them back in the queue, hit the discard button, then go again. Nothing in this video is contrary to legitimate normal procedure.
You are CORRECT that there is testimony of improperly hitting 'rescan' rather than 'discard' so they rack up a tally rather than reset it fresh. You are CORRECT that that will appear the same as the legitimate procedure for this scenario. But this isn't evidence of the fraudulent activity. It is only evidence of a jam. But we know there were jams, it isn't disputed that there were jams. Jams were widely reported and complained about on all sides.
So your claim that we finally have evidence of them rescanning is WRONG. They never disputed taking scanned ballots and putting them back in the queue to go again because that's part of the legitimate process for a jam.
This isn't evidence of fraud, it's only evidence of a jam. And jams aren't contested so this isn't valuable evidence. Nothing in this video is contrary to the normal legitimate procedure when encountering a jam.
But sure - we're the ones not thinking "objectively."
You're not. You're engaged in circular logic.
-
It's fraud because of the behavior
-
The behavior is suspicious because we know they are committing fraud
Cameras are readjusted a non zero number of times throughout a day. Jams aren't isolated incidents either, according to witness testimony they were constant. It didn't readjust when she was 'nearly done with her fraud' (shouldn't they have done the readjusting before if that was the case?) it readjusted in the middle of one of several such cases of ongoing and constant jamming.
If I showed you the exact same sort of behavior in a republican county you wouldn't follow the same logic. After all, since we know they aren't committing any fraud there's nothing suspicious about the camera readjustment or looking around because you're looking to see what's going on somewhere else in the room, when your next batches are arriving, etc.
This video is not evidence of fraud. We have mountains of actual evidence of actual fraud and you're clinging to this nonsense like it's the hill to die on. I don't want to say that people need to actually watch the dozens of hours of hearings and testimony before posting in these threads, but I'm getting close. You're all grossly uninformed and surprisingly resistant to learning any truth you don't like, even from someone who is on your side, right, and happy to point you in the direction of legitimate shit to be angry about.
I like to know a little bit about the people who call me names without addressing the validity of the content of my positions. Let me know how you do.
The scanner does stop. It stops without any user input. That's the jam.
Putting the offending ballot back in was the protocol, as per witness testimony. The protocol presupposed that a jam would predominantly be the fault of the machine rather than the ballot, so just giving it another go was appropriate.
And where that is the case, and it goes fine the second time, it doesn't get posted. You're watching someone use methodology that may have sufficient historical success that she's fine just trying five times because fuck it I get paid either way.
OR she's purposefully running up a tally on a bad ballot, purposefully created to jam, or merely serendipitous. But we don't know.
This video is evidence only of a jam, not of fraud. It's not exculpatory either, it isn't evidence that there is no fraud. But that's all it is.
Yes, we know. That's not the point.
Jams ARE an avenue for fraud. We have witness testimony to that effect. Moreover, we have reasonable suspicion that ballots were purposefully altered physically, and/or purposefully misprinted to intentionally create the jams that allow the opportunity for the fraud we have ACTUAL EVIDENCE for occurring.
This isn't evidence of anything other than a jam, which is not evidence of fraud. That's the point. This video only shows a jam, and jams aren't disputed, so this is a big to do about literally nothing.
It requires a gross misunderstanding of the fraud that occurred, the evidence available, and the cases being made to make this useless video a hill to die on and I am disturbed and dismayed at the proportion of people who comprise that group of grossly misinformed.
The machine stops without any input from the user. There is plenty of legitimate evidence of fraud, and zero reason to go pretending something innocuous is more than it is.
Moreover, you're exhibiting selection bias. The ONLY videos you've seen are of 90% Biden counties with jams, because those are the only counties with fraud to examine. No one is reviewing or posting jams in 'maga country'
Now, jams are an avenue for fraud, as per witness testimony. And there is suspicion that ballots were either physically altered or purposefully misprinted in certain counties to elicit a jam so the opportunity of fraud was available.
But this isn't evidence of that, it is only evidence of a jam, and not of fraud. She is seen doing exactly what she is supposed to do in the circumstance she is in. It is not evidence of fraud. That it is fraud because she is in the county that committed fraud is circular logic.
The country is in a civil war RIGHT NOW.
we're never going back
A lot of people are going to die.
No shit. But I'm not going to embrace a lie and agree there are two genders.
I'm not going to embrace a lie and agree that cops are out there killing innocent black men.
I'm not going to concede to the lie that Joe Biden won the Presidential election
And NO I'm not going to declare that a video containing no evidence of fraud, if fraud.
Truth fucking matters, and if your anger stems from your side being cheated rather than because TRUTH has been cheated, then you're no better than the leftists.
"We need to push fake evidence" gtfo with that shit.
You aren't going to convince a skeptic with evidence that can be easily debunked
And worse than that, if the first time someone on the other side listens to you and you push something that is so easily refuted, they are going to swat it down and conclude everything else is bs too so not worth their time. So they aren't going to listen to the actual mountain of actual evidence of actual fraud.
Are you retarded?
If rent was canceled then you couldn't be evicted when the moratorium lapses. That isn't the case. Rent has not been canceled. Just because you are unlikely to recover it from the non payers you're prepping to give the boot as soon as you can does not mean it has been canceled.
That has nothing to do with 'when you hit rescan the tabulator fires up and keeps going'
Don't inject nonsequiturs into a thread you're uninvolved in.
I have seven years as a print tech running everything from your commercial printers to docutechs, web fed presses, and million dollar (then state of the art) digital presses.
And yes, there are a ton of ways to 'jam' that don't result in a crumpled paper like in your dinky little office printer. Your 10k printed is a complicated series of process using shit parts. The dominion machine is just a single pass scanner.
Jams can include non feeds, double feed, delayed feeds, misalignments, misscans, uninterpretable scans, and so on - non of which result in a crumpled paper and are just going to spit the ballot out and pop up a fault.
we know that is a lie
Well you need to check yourself. Because you can literally watch the machine stop in the middle of it's batch without user input. You can listen to witness testimony describing this fault in detail.
If you 'know' that this is fraud, when in fact it isn't evidence at all of such, then you are outing yourself as a purveyor of untrustworthy knowledge. Your standards for 'knowing' are shit and no one should trust anything you say on anything.
Attend to your ignorance.
Hi 'handshake'.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Jams can include non feeds, double feeds, delayed feeds, misalignments, misreads, uninterpretable scans and so on. All of which fall under the catchall term and will result in spitting the offending sheet out and not a crumpled paper.
Your experience begins and ends with your office printer so please don't talk about shit you don't have any experience in, particularly when knowledge you're missing are in all the replies you didn't bother to read first.
I never said there is no fraud
I said there is no evidence of fraud
Still waiting on that IQ test buddy. The fact that you can't parse the difference helps me to know already the range that you're going to fall in, so it's not for my benefit so much as for yours.
You don't know what logic is
Accept is not an option. In all witness testimony the options are discard and rescan. Can you please watch the testimony? I need you to not be uninformed.
And I didn't say there is no fraud.
I said this is not evidence of fraud.
I never claimed this is exculpatory.
And I am correct on all accounts.
Don't call me a moron unless you want to test the assertion.
"Your honor, as you can clearly see, the operator looks around in what are clearly nervous movements. It stands that it must therefore follow that she was engaged in fraudulent activity, and that's why we seek relief in the decertification of Georgia's electors"
If you want to use it as evidence to form a falsifiable hypothesis that you attempt to affirm or reject (which you can't because you lack actual evidence of the act to assess) then that's fine. But that's not what people are doing.
Tell that to Lin Wood.
Anyone who believes Wood's tweets has to contend with his assertion that Pence is a pedo and a traitor to the republic as deserving of rope as Roberts.
It really is time to recognize that Wood's ego makes him a liability because he's the perfect disinfo patsy - you feed him a couple true insider secrets a little early and you become a 'trusted source' that is 'corroborated' by other 'trusted sources' and the moment you need to get some damaging disinfo out there (ie Pence) you just burn a source off knowing your ego hungry patsy will just run with it.
So is Lin wrong about everything? No. But you can't trust shit he says that you can't affirm elsewhere. He's clearly the type disinfo agents seek out, and spouting enough nonsense right now that he's not a trustworthy source to stake anything on alone - unfortunately everything he is right about is shit we already know.
Pence is not a pedo. He's not a traitor. He's not resigning.
From witness testimony that you haven't bothered to watch before brazenly opining on procedures you're apparently seeing for the first time 7 weeks after they first came out despite them being repeated across multiple state hearings.
I suppose you can make an unsubstantiated knee jerk judgement that has no evidentiary basis, but that's not what I meant when I said 'judgement'. If you disagree you might want to look up the definition of judgement. It differs greatly from 'wishful speculation'.
Witness testimony that you not only haven't watched despite it being available and repeated multiple times in multiple state hearings, but in the link I provided two comments up.
You can literally watch the machine stop, without any user input, in the middle of the batch. That's the jam. They were widely reported, including in sworn affidavits, and their proclivity is not disputed. This isn't breaking evidence that someone desperately needs to get into Rudy's hands.
Of course she doesn't get a pass for other shit she did, but THIS video isn't evidence of anything other than a jam, and since jams aren't contested this isn't evidence of anything worthwhile. This is not evidence of fraud. This is not evidence she's up to no good.
Your gut is garbage and needs refining, because it's following non evidence towards a conclusion it prefers.
You don't know her intent. You are not god. So where did intent come from? YOU injected it. Your determination that it is behavior indicative of fraud is dependent upon there being fraud, but since we can't see any fraud, that determination is wholly dependent on the behavior dependent on the conclusion dependent on the behavior.
It's circular logic. You can't just inject intent and use that to claim you now know what is occurring somewhere you can't see. This is how you arrive at a preferred delusion, not at truth.