Signature Audit in GA found to be 99.99% accurate.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/election-2020/georgia-secretary-of-state-concludes-audit-of-ballot-signatures

So here is the situation as I see it. The only evidence of any fraud is because Trump says so. So all his supporters, fans, sycophants, toadies and spineless GOP members are either lying, wish it wasn’t so, or ignorant. No one, as in no one, has shown any proof, evidence, hints or likelihood of fraud, just Trump’s say so and his nutjob “legal team” with fraudulent affidavits and phony witnesses that fall apart under evidentiary hearings. And for all this, they have put the country through a wringer during the worst pandemic in a century followed by economic and natural disasters all year.

Published by lenrothman

Published

26 thoughts on “Signature Audit in GA found to be 99.99% accurate.”

    1. It’s an audit, not a recount.

      Most audits look at samples and have been for decades or even centuries.

      But you prove my point regarding Trump fans. All the evidence in world would not change the idea that Trump planted in their brains. The election is a fraud because Trump said so and that is all the facts they need.

      You too probably don’t believe there are penguins in the Antarctic. And if you actually did take a trip there, the penguins you saw were brought in just to look like they were there all the time.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. Trump fans won’t be happy even if every single vote was background checked by the FBI.

          Oh, of course, how dumb of me. The FBI and the DOJ are in on the fix, according to Trump in his interview with FOX a while back.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  2. Speaking of Georgia, I recall many times you have advocated that candidates should only receive campaign contributions from within their constituency. So you might find it interesting that Jon Ossoff’s campaign is funded more than 95% from outside of Georgia and with 6 times as much from California than Georgia.

    But I’m sure there’s some reason your principle doesn’t count here.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/28/democrat-jon-ossoff-raised-nearly-six-times-more-in-california-than-georgia/

    Like

    Reply

    1. After 4 years of Trump’s lying, cheating, whining and all the rest of his dangerous flaws, at this point I doubt if many Americans give a hoot where money comes from as long as it’s American money, and as long as it gets the current squatters out of WH.

      You might have thought about the ‘money’ thing when Citizens United came about.

      Your comment rings more than a little hollow.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    3. As soon as corporations became people all the “purity” around campaign contributions became moot. Where do you think dark money comes from?…..oh, never mind, you’ll never know.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    4. The Senate elections in Georgia are national elections with national consequences. It is entirely appropriate that GOP dark money be countered by citizens from every state who want a functioning government that is able to deal with the multiple crises that Trump is leaving in his wake.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  3. RE: “So here is the situation as I see it.”

    You read too much into a trivial report. Georgia’s signature audit tells us almost nothing about fraud in that state’s election.

    Notice that mail-in ballots were separated from their envelopes and collected into batches for counting. The audit only verified that a sample of envelops in which ballots were received contained valid signatures.

    Even if we assume the sample of envelopes is representative of the total mail-in vote — an assumption for which no positive evidence is given — it is not logical to assume that the sample of envelopes is representative of the ballots assembled into batches for counting. Once separated traceability became lost.

    Thus: “Nine individuals at various recount sites in Georgia issued sworn affidavits stating that they had seen large numbers of uncreased mail-in ballots – meaning that the ballots had not been folded and mailed in an envelope as required by law — almost all cast for Biden. As longtime poll manager Susan Voyles wrote in her affidavit: ‘It was pristine. There was a difference in the texture of the paper … There were no markings on the ballots to show where they had come from, or where they had been processed. I observed that the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot marking device. By my estimate in observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for Joseph Biden.'”

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/yes-it-was-stolen-election-john-perazzo/

    Like

    Reply

      2. RE: “Explains a lot.”

        What does it explain? The quotation illustrates the point of my comment. Do you wish to dispute anything the quotation says?

        Like

        Reply

        1. When we have arrived at the place where “evidence” is down to the “texture of the paper” I think any comment on this silliness is superfluous.

          Remember: one pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          1. Republican ED: election disruption.

            “One observer for 10 tables. I see 12 tables.”

            “Ballots were smooth. Plus I think they were Biden votes…maybe.”

            “Suitcases brought in by swarthy Latino looking men in hoodies hidden under a table with, gasp, black cloth.”

            “Wayne County is full of, you know, “those folks”, so I will certify the district with fewer of “those folks”.”

            Quote marks mine to protect the ignorant.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “When we have arrived at the place where “evidence” is down to the “texture of the paper” I think any comment on this silliness is superfluous.”

            At least “texture of the paper” is a verifiable, physical characteristic. It is more real than the claim, “There is no evidence of election fraud.” It is also evidence that the signature audit proves nothing.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. So how did Voyles’ affidavit fare in evidentiary hearings?

      Her complaint was during the hand recount which confirmed the original recount and the third count afterwards.

      And it was guesswork as to how many ballots (800?) and why they were flat.

      But you make my point, just as Don did. No matter how many people, officials, judges, courts verify the results, it is not enough. Hundreds or thousands of people across 6 states are in on a big secret. Half of them Republicans, even avid Trump supporters.

      Paranoia on steroids.

      You still don’t believe there are penguins in the Antarctic.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “So how did Voyles’ affidavit fare in evidentiary hearings?”

        Do you know what an evidentiary hearing is? It is not a trial, not even close to a trial. Wikipedia has an article on the subject for your edification, if you want it.

        The point is, there is no close evaluation of evidence in an “evidentiary hearing.”

        As with the story of the signature audit, you assume too much. You accuse others in public of believing stupid things, but you yourself don’t deal in facts.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “. . . . but you yourself don’t deal in facts.”

          More stupidly insulting than usual today. But, then you are someone who believes everything that the lying con man is peddling, so I guess we should make allowances.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. “By definition, an evidentiary hearing is any court proceeding that involves witnesses giving testimony under oath before a judge and in some cases, presenting documentary evidence. In criminal matters, particularly those that involve felonies, evidentiary hearings are standard operating procedure.”

          https://legalbeagle.com/8401142-happens-during-evidentiary-hearing.html

          As I noted in an earlier post, the evidence presented by the postal employee regarding pre-dating ballots was shown to be false after a 9 hour evidentiary hearing in the courtroom.

          But I understand that you personally were not there, so it was all fake.

          Penguins again.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

    3. Bottom line for Trump fans:

      They don’t care about facts, just that Trump lost and that is unbearable. Couple that with the declaration that the voting was rigged by the president, and you have the mess we are in.

      That Trump lost and Republicans in general won in statehouses and Congress should set off the alarm bells that perhaps he was a world class floating turd in the punchbowl. He was the cause of the loss, not any fraud or other legal yoga the nutjobs in the remaining legal teams can conjure up that the fans eat up like dung beetles in a manure pile.

      Any proof to the contrary is proof that proves they are just plain right, dammit.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. Trump is attacking the “urban” voters, wink, wink, as the cause of his loss.

          Why is that? He gained there, but lost the suburban voters. But attacking white women, though he has a reputation, might shatter the fragile base.

          So it is the Abrams “machine” in all six states.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

    4. ” Georgia’s signature audit tells us almost nothing about fraud in that state’s election.”

      Do you understand why? The simple answer is there was none to the extent that would overturn the results of the election outcome in the state of Georgia. Or in any of the other states.

      Keep those goal posts moving.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to Jimmie Cancel reply