Trump indicted again

[wbtravis007]

ok, flock, I've read through what you've posted, and here's the problem I see. You may have encountered errors, but that's a far cry from proving that there was fraud. For that you would have to do research by finding the voter, questioning them as to why they erroneously registered or voted, and if they were put up to it by someone else. Then you would need to show that those registrations were the result of a conspiracy to defraud. Next you would have to find out for whom those registrants voted (they may have voted for Trump). And finally you'd have to connect the dots from DeKalb County to all counties in Georgia (at the least) to show that the election was stolen. That's a fairly massive undertaking.

I suggest you read it more thoroughly, especially the links.
I most definitely agree that it is a massive undertaking to 'prove' election results are inaccurate. It is far easier to swear by your mother's life that they are 'the most secure and accurate in history' and to censor and blacklist anyone who disagrees.

My question to you: Why should it be that way, and who is fighting tooth and nail to keep it the way it is and block and harass any attempt to improve and simplify the verification of results?
I have gone back through what you posted and I still maintain that what is being found are legitimate errors, not evidence of fraud. I don't think anyone would argue that voter rolls are 100% correct. The issue is whether anything is being done to address this issue. The EPIC system is one way, but some states, run by Republicans, have opted out of that system (if I understand correctly, Georgia is not one of those). I'm pretty sure that every state has a process for reviewing the rolls and purging them.

Not sure you read everything, but I think you might be in the same category as the judges asked to look at these issues. It is too overwhelming to digest, so you believe it's easier to sweep it under the rug as 'legitimate errors'. Even if it can be explained away as that ( I don't happen to think so. This is just one group's compilation of what they found), is this volume of 'legitimate errors' acceptable to you? To the point where no one can whittle it down to one official number that everyone can accept? And is the answer for you just to ignore all these 'legitimate errors' and censor anyone questioning them, as we are currently doing?

Who is censoring y'all?

I don't know why you're going into all of this in a thread where the subject matter is Trump's most recent indictment, but I personally am all for any efforts to uncover instances of voter fraud, and hope that, with all of the eyeballs that are apparently on the case, as many as possible of the people involved in those instances will be prosecuted and suffer a significant consequence. I'm a big believer in enforcing the law with the goal of deterring similar criminal behavior in the future.

Same goes for Hunter Biden and anyone else who might be shown to have broken the law, including any other member of the "Biden crime family." And, yeah, that includes Joe.

And, if the evidence demonstrates that Trump conspired with others to undermine the results of the election on many fronts, as is alleged, in violation of the laws cited, then I hope that they all end up suffering consequences that might deter others from trying to do the same.

[flockofseagulls104]

ok, flock, I've read through what you've posted, and here's the problem I see. You may have encountered errors, but that's a far cry from proving that there was fraud. For that you would have to do research by finding the voter, questioning them as to why they erroneously registered or voted, and if they were put up to it by someone else. Then you would need to show that those registrations were the result of a conspiracy to defraud. Next you would have to find out for whom those registrants voted (they may have voted for Trump). And finally you'd have to connect the dots from DeKalb County to all counties in Georgia (at the least) to show that the election was stolen. That's a fairly massive undertaking.

I suggest you read it more thoroughly, especially the links.
I most definitely agree that it is a massive undertaking to 'prove' election results are inaccurate. It is far easier to swear by your mother's life that they are 'the most secure and accurate in history' and to censor and blacklist anyone who disagrees.

My question to you: Why should it be that way, and who is fighting tooth and nail to keep it the way it is and block and harass any attempt to improve and simplify the verification of results?
I have gone back through what you posted and I still maintain that what is being found are legitimate errors, not evidence of fraud. I don't think anyone would argue that voter rolls are 100% correct. The issue is whether anything is being done to address this issue. The EPIC system is one way, but some states, run by Republicans, have opted out of that system (if I understand correctly, Georgia is not one of those). I'm pretty sure that every state has a process for reviewing the rolls and purging them.

Not sure you read everything, but I think you might be in the same category as the judges asked to look at these issues. It is too overwhelming to digest, so you believe it's easier to sweep it under the rug as 'legitimate errors'. Even if it can be explained away as that ( I don't happen to think so. This is just one group's compilation of what they found), is this volume of 'legitimate errors' acceptable to you? To the point where no one can whittle it down to one official number that everyone can accept? And is the answer for you just to ignore all these 'legitimate errors' and censor anyone questioning them, as we are currently doing?

Who is censoring y'all?

I don't know why you're going into all of this in a thread where the subject matter is Trump's most recent indictment, but I personally am all for any efforts to uncover instances of voter fraud, and hope that, with all of the eyeballs that are apparently on the case, as many as possible of the people involved in those instances will be prosecuted and suffer a significant consequence. I'm a big believer in enforcing the law with the goal of deterring similar criminal behavior in the future.

Same goes for Hunter Biden and anyone else who might be shown to have broken the law, including any other member of the "Biden crime family." And, yeah, that includes Joe.

And, if the evidence demonstrates that Trump conspired with others to undermine the results of the election on many fronts, as is alleged, in violation of the laws cited, then I hope that they all end up suffering consequences that might deter others from trying to do the same.

Who is censoring y'all?
Um, anyone or any 'journalist' who uses the term 'The Big Lie' or repeats the mantra 'unfounded claims' in their 'news stories' for one. And it includes the sham prosecution of Trump by the DOJ, conveniently ignoring the fact that the entire democrat party denied Trump's election and did all they could to sabotage his administration by constantly making up crimes and accusing him of them. OMG, they're still doing it! Who woulda thunk it? I guess they think if you cry wolf enough times and very loudly someone might believe you at some point.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, with the condition that equal justice be meted out to all the election deniers on the other side. Especially Hillary Clinton, who manufactured and promoted the Russia Collusion hoax, among many other things. Just to let you know, Trump had the opportunity to do to her what they are now doing to him, but he decided not to do it because he knew it would be bad for the country. His opponents do not care about the good of the country.

[wbtravis007]

Not sure you read everything, but I think you might be in the same category as the judges asked to look at these issues. It is too overwhelming to digest, so you believe it's easier to sweep it under the rug as 'legitimate errors'. Even if it can be explained away as that ( I don't happen to think so. This is just one group's compilation of what they found), is this volume of 'legitimate errors' acceptable to you? To the point where no one can whittle it down to one official number that everyone can accept? And is the answer for you just to ignore all these 'legitimate errors' and censor anyone questioning them, as we are currently doing?

Who is censoring y'all?

I don't know why you're going into all of this in a thread where the subject matter is Trump's most recent indictment, but I personally am all for any efforts to uncover instances of voter fraud, and hope that, with all of the eyeballs that are apparently on the case, as many as possible of the people involved in those instances will be prosecuted and suffer a significant consequence. I'm a big believer in enforcing the law with the goal of deterring similar criminal behavior in the future.

Same goes for Hunter Biden and anyone else who might be shown to have broken the law, including any other member of the "Biden crime family." And, yeah, that includes Joe.

And, if the evidence demonstrates that Trump conspired with others to undermine the results of the election on many fronts, as is alleged, in violation of the laws cited, then I hope that they all end up suffering consequences that might deter others from trying to do the same.

Who is censoring y'all?
Um, anyone or any 'journalist' who uses the term 'The Big Lie' or repeats the mantra 'unfounded claims' in their 'news stories' for one. And it includes the sham prosecution of Trump by the DOJ, conveniently ignoring the fact that the entire democrat party denied Trump's election and did all they could to sabotage his administration by constantly making up crimes and accusing him of them. OMG, they're still doing it! Who woulda thunk it? I guess they think if you cry wolf enough times and very loudly someone might believe you at some point.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, with the condition that equal justice be meted out to all the election deniers on the other side. Especially Hillary Clinton, who manufactured and promoted the Russia Collusion hoax, among many other things. Just to let you know, Trump had the opportunity to do to her what they are now doing to him, but he decided not to do it because he knew it would be bad for the country. His opponents do not care about the good of the country.

Oh. Ok. Got ya.

Guess it's a vocabulary thing again. I guess you know the "best words" but just don't always know what they mean.

All of the other stuff in your post has been addressed many times before, of course.

Yawn.

[flockofseagulls104]

Who is censoring y'all?

I don't know why you're going into all of this in a thread where the subject matter is Trump's most recent indictment, but I personally am all for any efforts to uncover instances of voter fraud, and hope that, with all of the eyeballs that are apparently on the case, as many as possible of the people involved in those instances will be prosecuted and suffer a significant consequence. I'm a big believer in enforcing the law with the goal of deterring similar criminal behavior in the future.

Same goes for Hunter Biden and anyone else who might be shown to have broken the law, including any other member of the "Biden crime family." And, yeah, that includes Joe.

And, if the evidence demonstrates that Trump conspired with others to undermine the results of the election on many fronts, as is alleged, in violation of the laws cited, then I hope that they all end up suffering consequences that might deter others from trying to do the same.

Who is censoring y'all?
Um, anyone or any 'journalist' who uses the term 'The Big Lie' or repeats the mantra 'unfounded claims' in their 'news stories' for one. And it includes the sham prosecution of Trump by the DOJ, conveniently ignoring the fact that the entire democrat party denied Trump's election and did all they could to sabotage his administration by constantly making up crimes and accusing him of them. OMG, they're still doing it! Who woulda thunk it? I guess they think if you cry wolf enough times and very loudly someone might believe you at some point.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, with the condition that equal justice be meted out to all the election deniers on the other side. Especially Hillary Clinton, who manufactured and promoted the Russia Collusion hoax, among many other things. Just to let you know, Trump had the opportunity to do to her what they are now doing to him, but he decided not to do it because he knew it would be bad for the country. His opponents do not care about the good of the country.

Oh. Ok. Got ya.

Guess it's a vocabulary thing again. I guess you know the "best words" but just don't always know what they mean.

All of the other stuff in your post has been addressed many times before, of course.

Yawn.

Addressed incorrectly with one side of the argument. But addressed, yes. Take your nap already.

[silverscreenselect]

Raffensperger defends Georgia’s ‘model’ voting system as accurate, secure

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Monday pushed back against Republican activists’ calls for the state to adopt hand-marked paper ballots for the 2024 elections. Speaking to the Rotary Club of Savannah, Georgia’s top elections official challenged the notion that the state’s balloting system is not trusted by voters. “My No. 1 job is making sure that we have secure, accurate elections here in Georgia,” Raffensperger said. “We’ve done that.”

More than 100 paper ballot advocates attended the State Election Board meeting on Aug. 1. At a Chatham County Board of Elections meeting last month, several dozen activists petitioned for paper ballots. One of those public speakers was physically removed by police officers after refusing the board chairman’s order to yield the floor.

Raffensperger cited a poll conducted by the University of Georgia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that showed 98.9% of Georgia voters reporting no issues casting ballots in the 2022 midterm election. He also noted that Georgia is top-ranked for election integrity by the Bipartisan Election Policy Institute and No. 2 in rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning public policy organization. Raffensperger’s comments echoed those he made to the Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce last week when he called Georgia’s voting system “the model now” for secure elections. “Over 99% of voters who showed up in 2022 had a great experience?” Raffensperger said. “That’s kind of like showing up at Chick-fil-A and not having a long wait.”

[flockofseagulls104]

Raffensperger defends Georgia’s ‘model’ voting system as accurate, secure

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Monday pushed back against Republican activists’ calls for the state to adopt hand-marked paper ballots for the 2024 elections. Speaking to the Rotary Club of Savannah, Georgia’s top elections official challenged the notion that the state’s balloting system is not trusted by voters. “My No. 1 job is making sure that we have secure, accurate elections here in Georgia,” Raffensperger said. “We’ve done that.”

More than 100 paper ballot advocates attended the State Election Board meeting on Aug. 1. At a Chatham County Board of Elections meeting last month, several dozen activists petitioned for paper ballots. One of those public speakers was physically removed by police officers after refusing the board chairman’s order to yield the floor.

Raffensperger cited a poll conducted by the University of Georgia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that showed 98.9% of Georgia voters reporting no issues casting ballots in the 2022 midterm election. He also noted that Georgia is top-ranked for election integrity by the Bipartisan Election Policy Institute and No. 2 in rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning public policy organization. Raffensperger’s comments echoed those he made to the Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce last week when he called Georgia’s voting system “the model now” for secure elections. “Over 99% of voters who showed up in 2022 had a great experience?” Raffensperger said. “That’s kind of like showing up at Chick-fil-A and not having a long wait.”

I guess that's the end of the discussion. Raffensberger says it's ok. Just like Lula did in Brazil and Maduro did in Venezuela. After all, he oversaw his own re-election. That's enough for you. The facts and figures don't matter. Never did, and never will in your mind.

And BTW, Lula in Brazil paved the way for Biden. He was able to make sure his political rival, (who actually won the election) will not be able to run again until 2030. First thing he did. Great role model for our 'democracy'.
Maduro had it even easier. After he stole his election he just appointed himself for life.

[wbtravis007]

Who is censoring y'all?
Um, anyone or any 'journalist' who uses the term 'The Big Lie' or repeats the mantra 'unfounded claims' in their 'news stories' for one. And it includes the sham prosecution of Trump by the DOJ, conveniently ignoring the fact that the entire democrat party denied Trump's election and did all they could to sabotage his administration by constantly making up crimes and accusing him of them. OMG, they're still doing it! Who woulda thunk it? I guess they think if you cry wolf enough times and very loudly someone might believe you at some point.

Surprisingly, I agree with most of the rest of your post, with the condition that equal justice be meted out to all the election deniers on the other side. Especially Hillary Clinton, who manufactured and promoted the Russia Collusion hoax, among many other things. Just to let you know, Trump had the opportunity to do to her what they are now doing to him, but he decided not to do it because he knew it would be bad for the country. His opponents do not care about the good of the country.

Oh. Ok. Got ya.

Guess it's a vocabulary thing again. I guess you know the "best words" but just don't always know what they mean.

All of the other stuff in your post has been addressed many times before, of course.

Yawn.

Addressed incorrectly with one side of the argument. But addressed, yes. Take your nap already.

Funny that you suggested that for me. I had already thought that maybe you haven’t been getting enough sleep or something.

Something seems to be interfering with your mental clarity. Maybe a matter of being overwhelmed by emotions, but your recent rants definitely suggest a problem again.

You’re just not making much sense in a lot of the ones that I’ve seen.

[flockofseagulls104]

Oh. Ok. Got ya.

Guess it's a vocabulary thing again. I guess you know the "best words" but just don't always know what they mean.

All of the other stuff in your post has been addressed many times before, of course.

Yawn.

Addressed incorrectly with one side of the argument. But addressed, yes. Take your nap already.

Funny that you suggested that for me. I had already thought that maybe you haven’t been getting enough sleep or something.

Something seems to be interfering with your mental clarity. Maybe a matter of being overwhelmed by emotions, but your recent rants definitely suggest a problem again.

You’re just not making much sense in a lot of the ones that I’ve seen.

Somewhere, maybe in your alternate universe, there may be some person that finds you humorous in some weird way.
I suggest you spend your spare time in a search for that person. You could have a rip-roaring hoot together. It ain't doing much here.

[silverscreenselect]

I guess that's the end of the discussion. Raffensberger says it's ok.

Raffensperger and 60 courts. Versus zero courts who found any fraud.

[wbtravis007]

I guess that's the end of the discussion. Raffensberger says it's ok.

Raffensperger and 60 courts. Versus zero courts who found any fraud.

Those cases, and flock in arguments here, remind me of Red Klotz.

As far as I know, though, Red wasn’t a sore loser or a whiner about people being meanies.

[kroxquo]

Raffensperger defends Georgia’s ‘model’ voting system as accurate, secure

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Monday pushed back against Republican activists’ calls for the state to adopt hand-marked paper ballots for the 2024 elections. Speaking to the Rotary Club of Savannah, Georgia’s top elections official challenged the notion that the state’s balloting system is not trusted by voters. “My No. 1 job is making sure that we have secure, accurate elections here in Georgia,” Raffensperger said. “We’ve done that.”

More than 100 paper ballot advocates attended the State Election Board meeting on Aug. 1. At a Chatham County Board of Elections meeting last month, several dozen activists petitioned for paper ballots. One of those public speakers was physically removed by police officers after refusing the board chairman’s order to yield the floor.

Raffensperger cited a poll conducted by the University of Georgia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that showed 98.9% of Georgia voters reporting no issues casting ballots in the 2022 midterm election. He also noted that Georgia is top-ranked for election integrity by the Bipartisan Election Policy Institute and No. 2 in rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning public policy organization. Raffensperger’s comments echoed those he made to the Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce last week when he called Georgia’s voting system “the model now” for secure elections. “Over 99% of voters who showed up in 2022 had a great experience?” Raffensperger said. “That’s kind of like showing up at Chick-fil-A and not having a long wait.”

Do paper ballot advocates stop to consider that that would make the issue of not having a total count on election night even more of a problem simply by virtue of taking longer to count and then recount to verify? The 45th President made (and continues to make) that an issue in 2020 by claiming that the early returns showed that he won but that later counts showed differently, even though that was exactly the pattern that pundits on both sides had predicted. Hand-counted paper ballots would mean we would never have a winner on election night.

[BackInTex]

Do paper ballot advocates stop to consider that that would make the issue of not having a total count on election night even more of a problem simply by virtue of taking longer to count and then recount to verify? The 45th President made (and continues to make) that an issue in 2020 by claiming that the early returns showed that he won but that later counts showed differently, even though that was exactly the pattern that pundits on both sides had predicted. Hand-counted paper ballots would mean we would never have a winner on election night.

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

[flockofseagulls104]

Do paper ballot advocates stop to consider that that would make the issue of not having a total count on election night even more of a problem simply by virtue of taking longer to count and then recount to verify? The 45th President made (and continues to make) that an issue in 2020 by claiming that the early returns showed that he won but that later counts showed differently, even though that was exactly the pattern that pundits on both sides had predicted. Hand-counted paper ballots would mean we would never have a winner on election night.

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

I am not an expert in this proposal, but once the procedures and security challenges are worked out, we would have PHYSICAL records of what the votes were on a precinct-by-precinct basis. In Georgia, I believe the most registered voters any precinct can have is 5000. That is certainly countable. The proponents of moving back to paper ballots contend, and I do agree with them, that there is no way of determining in total certainty the actual results of any election using electronics. There are just too many vulnerabilities and complications.
There are test demonstrations being done in many areas of the country on how this could work. I wish this project well, though it will take many years to implement, and a lot of people to convince. Especially those that benefit from the current way of doing it.

[SportsFan68]

Do paper ballot advocates stop to consider that that would make the issue of not having a total count on election night even more of a problem simply by virtue of taking longer to count and then recount to verify? The 45th President made (and continues to make) that an issue in 2020 by claiming that the early returns showed that he won but that later counts showed differently, even though that was exactly the pattern that pundits on both sides had predicted. Hand-counted paper ballots would mean we would never have a winner on election night.

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Do paper ballot advocates stop to consider that that would make the issue of not having a total count on election night even more of a problem simply by virtue of taking longer to count and then recount to verify? The 45th President made (and continues to make) that an issue in 2020 by claiming that the early returns showed that he won but that later counts showed differently, even though that was exactly the pattern that pundits on both sides had predicted. Hand-counted paper ballots would mean we would never have a winner on election night.

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

There are citizens that disagree with your assessment.

[Bob Juch]

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

There are citizens that disagree with your assessment.

You can't make everyone happy.

[flockofseagulls104]

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

There are citizens that disagree with your assessment.

You can't make everyone happy.

That is certainly a wonderful truism. However, in this case, you can go blissfully with the status quo, or you can try and actually fix what is demonstrably wrong, whether you believe it affected the outcome of any election or not.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump has subpoena power now. And the first thing he finds is that the highly partisan Jan 6th witch burning trials destroyed and are purposely hiding the records from which they picked and chose what to present to the public.
Suspiciously missing are most of the records from the 'blue team' which was charged with investigating Capitol security leading up to and including that day.
But we are all conspiracy theorists....
God help us all.

[tlynn78]

Trump has subpoena power now. And the first thing he finds is that the highly partisan Jan 6th witch burning trials destroyed and are purposely hiding the records from which they picked and chose what to present to the public.
Suspiciously missing are most of the records from the 'blue team' which was charged with investigating Capitol security leading up to and including that day.
But we are all conspiracy theorists....
God help us all.

Exactly. And the usual morons will have just as many excuses for that, if not more, as they had for their gurl Hilz and her team destroying 30k-plus emails that were under subpoena

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump has subpoena power now. And the first thing he finds is that the highly partisan Jan 6th witch burning trials destroyed and are purposely hiding the records from which they picked and chose what to present to the public.
Suspiciously missing are most of the records from the 'blue team' which was charged with investigating Capitol security leading up to and including that day.
But we are all conspiracy theorists....
God help us all.

I will post this here, too.

[silverscreenselect]

Trump has subpoena power now. And the first thing he finds is that the highly partisan Jan 6th witch burning trials destroyed and are purposely hiding the records from which they picked and chose what to present to the public.
Suspiciously missing are most of the records from the 'blue team' which was charged with investigating Capitol security leading up to and including that day.
But we are all conspiracy theorists....
God help us all.

Jack Smith is about to turn over 11 million pages of documents to Trump's defense team, and, as you say, they are free to subpoena anyone they want to obtain other evidence.

And in case you haven't noticed, Smith hasn't charged Trump with participating in or inciting the January 6 insurrection, so whatever Capitol security did or did not do that day is irrelevant to the crimes for which he is charged, which took place prior to then.

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump has subpoena power now. And the first thing he finds is that the highly partisan Jan 6th witch burning trials destroyed and are purposely hiding the records from which they picked and chose what to present to the public.
Suspiciously missing are most of the records from the 'blue team' which was charged with investigating Capitol security leading up to and including that day.
But we are all conspiracy theorists....
God help us all.

Jack Smith is about to turn over 11 million pages of documents to Trump's defense team, and, as you say, they are free to subpoena anyone they want to obtain other evidence.

And in case you haven't noticed, Smith hasn't charged Trump with participating in or inciting the January 6 insurrection, so whatever Capitol security did or did not do that day is irrelevant to the crimes for which he is charged, which took place prior to then.

AFAIK NO ONE has been charged with 'Insurrection'. That is just a buzzword disseminated by the left that has come to be a truism within their bubble.

[SportsFan68]

First, we don't need to have a winner on election night. We need an accurate count of valid votes more than we need an immediate count.
Second, we could still get a winner (with as much confidence as we did in the middle parts of the 20th century) with the proper processes and right amount of resources.

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

There are citizens that disagree with your assessment.

What I glanced through consisted of a lot of verbiage which did not disagree with my statement. I stand by it.

[flockofseagulls104]

I could not agree more. We need it, and we have it in Colorado. We have the proper processes and right amount of resources. I'm proud to be a part of it.

There are citizens that disagree with your assessment.

What I glanced through consisted of a lot of verbiage which did not disagree with my statement. I stand by it.

Conclusions
The results of voter canvassing in four Colorado counties (Douglas, El Paso, Pueblo, and Weld)
showed significant discrepancies and irregularities in the Colorado election records, indicating failure of
safeguards to achieve the Colorado Constitution’s mandate that the general assembly secure the purity
of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise. A "best estimate" statistical analysis
indicated, conservatively, that approximately 8% of voters (123,852 out of 1.1M) in those four Colorado
counties were affected by election canvassing-detected irregularities, alone. Mail-in ballots were sent to
individuals who were either deceased, had moved, or were non-citizens. Additionally, 3% of the voter
registration reflected irregularities in the residential addresses, highlighting that the current Colorado
registration system (SCORE) data is inaccurate. The counting of Illegitimate ballots not only deprives the
rights of Colorado citizens and dilutes their sacred vote, but it also is in violation of state law. These
irregularities and issues directly impact (and call into question) statewide, county, and local elections. A
statewide independent investigation (encompassing canvassing and a full forensic audit of the entire
election system) must be performed to understand the magnitude and impact of the known and
unknown issues. To reiterate a statewide independent investigation must be accomplished to ensure
integrity, security, and transparency in every aspect of Colorado’s elections. Demanding that
independent investigation is unequivocally within the Constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

Good to hear it. I hope you're helping to address the problems you still have, and not denying there are any problems, like so many in power are doing.

[SportsFan68]

Conclusions
The results of voter canvassing in four Colorado counties (Douglas, El Paso, Pueblo, and Weld)
showed significant discrepancies and irregularities in the Colorado election records, indicating failure of
safeguards to achieve the Colorado Constitution’s mandate that the general assembly secure the purity
of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise. A "best estimate" statistical analysis
indicated, conservatively, that approximately 8% of voters (123,852 out of 1.1M) in those four Colorado
counties were affected by election canvassing-detected irregularities, alone. Mail-in ballots were sent to
individuals who were either deceased, had moved, or were non-citizens. Additionally, 3% of the voter
registration reflected irregularities in the residential addresses, highlighting that the current Colorado
registration system (SCORE) data is inaccurate. The counting of Illegitimate ballots not only deprives the
rights of Colorado citizens and dilutes their sacred vote, but it also is in violation of state law. These
irregularities and issues directly impact (and call into question) statewide, county, and local elections. A
statewide independent investigation (encompassing canvassing and a full forensic audit of the entire
election system) must be performed to understand the magnitude and impact of the known and
unknown issues. To reiterate a statewide independent investigation must be accomplished to ensure
integrity, security, and transparency in every aspect of Colorado’s elections. Demanding that
independent investigation is unequivocally within the Constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

Good to hear it. I hope you're helping to address the problems you still have, and not denying there are any problems, like so many in power are doing.

Mail-in ballots were sent to individuals who were either deceased, had moved, or were non-citizens. It's true that many ballots are sent to people who are deceased or have moved. What is not true is that those ballots are counted. As for non-citizens, if some sort of fraud put some such people on the voting rolls, it is actionable as fraud, and The Citizens of Colorado must step up and report those people.

A full audit is conducted after every election. It's called a risk-limiting audit, and I am confident that the credentials of the individuals who designed it will meet or exceed those of the eight unnamed individuals in the Reviewers Credentials section.

The verbiage in the report does not create any disagreement with my statement. I stand by it.