Video Proof The Democrats Cheated

That doesn’t mean signature matching can’t be done. If you have 5,000 mail in ballots. You should have 5000 envelopes with unique signatures on them which match the voter registration records. If you don’t, there’s a problem.

 

Which has dick to do with your OP, since that would involve a prior and completely separate part of the process.

 

Don't we call this grasping at straws?

 

The OP and his defense of it? Abso-frakking-lutely.

 

Doesn't matter. If the outcome of the election is unknown then it is unknown. That means NO electors selected - which the state legislature can decide - but then Congress can approve or disapprove. If that still does not pick a president, then the US House of Representatives decide - 1 vote per state.

 

It's on video. What is stunning is how some Democrats can not accept reality or outright refuse to do so and think sneering gets around it. As Joe Biden demanded, Democrats are to never accept facts.

 

As explained, the OP has precisely dick to do with the part of the process it claims the cheating occurred in. Desperate straw grasping fail on your part.

 

Like a fool, I looked. Found where there were 1500 votes thrown out for lack of signature verification in the primaries, but none about the presidential election. It also stated that a total of 138 votes were in question in this case, hardly enough to make a difference.
What's your point anyway?
https://www.ibtimes.sg/michigan-ele...t-multiple-ballots-same-signature-video-54312

 

No it does not.

 

If the write in’s were the same handwriting on multiple ballots then either they didn’t do signature verification or they did a poor job of it. Either way it should be done again. Not sure what part of that you don’t understand.

 

There were 1,491 ballots cast in Central Lake Township (the precinct in question). If 138 of those were fraudulent because they had the same signature that means 9.25% of the ballots in that township were fraudulent.

Extrapolate that out to all of Michigan and that’s 512,385 votes. Remind me again the difference in Michigan?

 

And how do you come to that conclusion?

 

Once the outer envelope is separated from the inner one what you ask for isn't possible. Recognize basic reality and suck it the **** up.

 

False. The envelopes with signatures and date stamped through the mail, can be matched to voter registration records to verify there are the same amount of unique signatures and envelopes as there are mail in votes. What do you mean it can’t be done?

What you can’t do is then determine which of those votes were fraudulent. As such they all have to be thrown out. That would require full signature matching throughout the entire state and we would have to see enough discrepancy between the number of unique signatures and votes cast to say it would influence the outcome but it can certainly be done.

 

But they can't be matched back to the UNSIGNED BALLOTS that they originally contained. And multiple judges - including Donnie Dipshit appointees - have kicked your final idea right in the nuts as, well, nuts. Sorry, your proposal is based in fantasy.

 

That doesn’t matter. What it shows is there was enough fraud to undermine the validity of the numbers so the election would be invalidated and the state house would have to vote.

 

Multiple judges - including Donnie Dipshit appointees - have kicked your idea right in the nuts as, well, nuts.

And since the safe harbor and the EC vote deadlines have already passed, you're out of time and out of luck.

 

I don’t understand. What is so insane about wanting to verify that we actually have enough unique signatures on envelopes to match the number of mail in votes we have?

 

I mean if you ACTUALLY won fair and square what’s the problem? If a boxer beats down another boxer and he didn’t weight his gloves does he have a problem letting anyone verify that his gloves weren’t weighted after the fight? No. But the ones who weighted their gloves do.

 

YOU assert that there was fraud. Prove. It. Nut up or shaddup, because you and those like you are getting ridiculously boring with this conspiracy theory bullshit. Sixty plus lawsuits have yet to prove a SINGLE INSTANCE of fraud, and when actually in court the lawyers - including Tutti Frutti Rudy - have EXPLICITLY stated there was none. It's over. You lost. **** your feelings. It is what it is. Reality will march on whether or not you choose to participate.

 

In Arizona, the judge allowed a sample of 100 ballots to be inspected through signature verification and the defense found no evidence of fraud. At this point, it's not just asking a boxer to take their gloves off. It's asking the boxer to also take their pants off, get a cavity check, urinalysis over and over.

 

Your bold and capital letters can’t change the fact that you’re asserting a catch 22. I have to be able to verify the signatures to prove fraud. But I’m not allowed to verify the signatures unless I have proof of fraud, which I can’t get unless I’m allowed to verify the signatures.

Furthermore your assertion that we have to be able to prove fraud exists to be able to get verification that our elections weren’t tampered with is preposterous.

 

Translation: You haven't got dick.

 

You mean this one?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...trump-votes-republican-party-says/3799242001/

“It was among the duplicate ballots where inspectors found problems of "serious concern," according to a Wednesday filing from Arizona GOP lawyer Jack Wilenchik.

“One original ballot contained what "was clearly a vote for Trump," but the "duplicate ballot switched the vote to Biden," he wrote in the court filing. Another ballot "was clearly a vote only for Trump, but the duplicate ballot had a vote for both Trump and a 'blank' write-in candidate." That caused the Trump vote to be canceled, Wilenchik wrote, since voters could only choose one candidate in the presidential race.

For the signature verification review, handwriting experts found that eight to 10 mail-in ballots had "inconclusive" signature matches based on the number of signatures on file, the GOP filing states. Ward's team noted an inconclusive result isn't the same as "invalid or fraudulent."“

 

For the signature verification review, handwriting experts found that eight to 10 mail-in ballots had "inconclusive" signature matches based on the number of signatures on file, the GOP filing states. Ward's team noted an inconclusive result isn't the same as "invalid or fraudulent."“

From the link:

Roopali Desai, a lawyer for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, had previously argued Ward's repeated calls for ballot reviews were attempts to "fish" for something to later be presented at the hearing, and that Ward had no existing evidence of misconduct.

"(Ward) alleges that county officials engaged in 'misconduct' by (1) failing to allow observers to stand close enough to watch the signature verification process for early ballots, and (2) failing to allow observers to watch one step in the ballot duplication process," Desai wrote in a Tuesday filing.

"Nothing in the law entitles political party observers to a closeup view of the signature verification process or duplication process," she wrote. "Beyond that, Petitioner fails to allege facts sufficient to suggest any wrongdoing by Maricopa County officials, much less overcome the presumption that election officials acted in good faith."

Desai went on to say that Ward was working to undermine election integrity despite four prior election challenges either being dismissed or withdrawn because of a lack of evidence.

"Difficult as it may be for Petitioner to accept, this election is over, and her preferred slate of presidential electors received fewer votes than those of the winning challenger," Desai wrote.