Trump's Lawyers should have known better

That is an SV audit of 15,000 in a county of hundreds of thousands. That’s not an SV audit of one full county.

 

Because there’s no record or indication By ANYONE that it was done. Furthermore it’s not part of the routine process.

If it was prove it.

 

And we know because the democrats sued to stop them when we tried lol

 

I don't have to prove squat. The REPUBLICAN Governor certified the election. The REPUBLICAN controlled Board of Supervisors refused to let the cyber ninja audit happen at their facility so the Republicans in the AZ Senate had to rent the state fairgrounds.

There is NO evidence that any fraud took place in AZ

 

Yes it is. That's what an audit is. It isn't a signature verification of every ballot. It's a randomly selected batch of ballots.

 

That’s because the ONLY way to find the type of fraud the democrats have engaged in is with an SV audit of a full county. Which the democrats have refused to allow.

I’m not sure what part of that you don’t understand?

 

False. There is NO OTHER WAY to identify fraudulent ballots introduced into the count except with an SV audit of one full county.

If you can tell us of another way, then by all means do so.

 

An audit is the examination of a randomly selected batch of items from a larger set.

In this case the Signature Verification AUDIT is an examination of a randomly selected batch of the county ballots. You don't verify every single ballot.

 

I understand the word "audit"

Apparently you do not.

 

No I don’t think you do.


audit /ô′dĭt/


noun

1. An examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy.
2. An adjustment or correction of accounts.
3. An examined and verified account.

 

It will be litigated soon to determine that.
Others have been pleading guilty already.
Or tried and sentenced.

 

Really?
What are people in GA pleading guilty for?

 

Given that once they finish their probation there is no conviction. Nothing

 

They plead guilty.
When they are not guilty?
Just so in the future it might not be on the record?

 

Yeah people do that all the time. They would fight any and all charges but since the primary charges are too risky and the consequences of taking the deal of a charge, that you would have fought in court alongside the primary charge, are so inconsequential so as to make it not worth the risk to contest both in court and they’ll cop a plea to a minor charge they didn’t actually commit.

 

Lol. Sure.
Innocent lawyers routinely plead guilty when they are not.

5 yrs a felon. Loss of license.

...
Chesebro pleaded guilty Friday to one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. Prosecutors recommended he serve five years of probation, pay restitution and complete community service, along with testifying at trial.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/20/1207417000/kenneth-chesebro-guilty-plea-georgia

 

Lol where do you see he loses his license?


Because his plea occurred under the Georgia First Offenser Program which means that he gets probation and once his probation ends, he no longer has a conviction on his record.

 

An examination made BY TAKING A RANDOM SAMPLE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_audit

This article gives the sample size required by each state.

Generally each state requires a sample size of about 5%

 

So how does that identify a fraudulent ballot?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

But for 5 yrs he is a convicted felon.
According to you he did so because he's innocent and just didn't want to go to trial?

 

It's statistics.

For example if I have a bin of 100,000 red rubber balls and I want to find the error rate of how many balls came out yellow instead of red I don't go through all 100,000 balls. I take a random sample, say 5% (5,000 balls) and see how many of them are yellow and that gives me a pretty good idea of how many yellow balls are in the the whole lot of 100,000.

Take a sample size of 5% of the mail in ballots...see how many have a signature violation and that will give you a good idea as to whether or not you need to a deeper dive into the ballots.

 

What the actual ****. Have you been paying attention this entire time?

That doesn’t do anything but verify that the envelope is unique and correct.

How does that identify a ballot that didn’t come in, in an envelope and was introduced into the count after the legitimate ones were removed from their envelopes?

 

Prove first that was an issue then we can look into it.

So far all you've done is post videos of vote counting facilities and make the unfounded claim that you could easily sneak in fake votes.

Besides how would what you think needs to be done be any better than the method I just outlined?

 

By securing the counting facility in the first place. Which, as in the examples I've mentioned, has worked for generations. Mail-in ballots are a relatively new wrinkle, if you want to call 20+ years old new. But vote counting security is not.

 

… you have to be kidding.

Because if fraudulent ballots were introduced into the count after the legitimate ones were introduced the ONLY way to find them, and I stress again the ONLY WAY to definitively know whether or not fraudulent ballots were introduced into the count…

Is with a signature verification audit of one FULL county. Because if fraudulent ballots WERE introduced into the count then you will not have as many uniquely identifying envelopes with unique signatures that match the voting registration records as you have mail in ballots.