Election Litigation Status

[honorentheos]

Oh really? Remember the thing about confusing innuendo for fact?

Share your source for that claim.

I know video doesn't convince guys like you but here:
https://rumble.com/vbzvl9-the-second-vi ... llots.html
and here
https://rumble.com/vbzvpp-the-third-vid ... ke-tw.html
and here
https://rumble.com/vbzvi7-precinct-no.- ... na-mi.html

watch all 3, and return with shovel for digging your trench deeper.

Remember how the issue you have is the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact?

Your second video seems to be the one you posted to support your claim. So what's it show?

We see a table where a couple of people participating in the limited risk audit are being told their job is count the number of ballots which they need to finish doing. They say they have ballots that they believe have the same signature on them and want to challenge them. She tells them they need to finish counting them because the audit process needs completed and their job is to count the ballots first, that she understands they believe there are inconsistencies with a small stack of ballots they have separated out from the others. But the first step is for them to count and to confirm how many ballots were in what I hear her call a "can". They ask if, once they are done counting can they challenge the ballots they have separated out? She tells them that the audit needs them to finish counting the ballots which is their job at this point in the process, she explains their job is a quantity count, and the audit is being performed as part of the overall process but they need to finish counting for the next steps to happen. So they need to stop cosplaying as investigators and finish the quantity count.

The innuendo is that people tallying votes were being told to include ones with obvious voter fraud involved.

The facts are the people at the table are supposed to be counting how many ballots were in a container so the audit could be performed, have instead begun to act as investigators, and their supervisor is explaining to them what their job is, why it's necessary they do it quickly so they aren't holding the process up, and outlining the rest of the process.

So, thanks again for confirming the problem with you and people like you treating innuendo as fact.

[Res Ipsa]

You’re watching the BS asymmetry principle in action.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

One nitpick, Honor.

They say they have ballots that they believe have the same signature on them and want to challenge them.

I'm seeing this all over Twitter. People think the ballots themselves are signed, and that multiple forged ballots are being counted. This is an impossibility because, like canpakes noted, the ballots aren't signed. This is a HUGE piece of the misinformation being pushed by the shitgibbons.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

One nitpick, Honor.

They say they have ballots that they believe have the same signature on them and want to challenge them.

I'm seeing this all over Twitter. People think the ballots themselves are signed, and that multiple forged ballots are being counted. This is an impossibility because, like canpakes noted, the ballots aren't signed. This is a HUGE piece of the misinformation being pushed by the shitgibbons.

- Doc

I don't know about that either way. They tell the supervisor the signatures are the issues. She doesn't dispute it.

She does tell them later in the video they need to count the presidential votes and sort them by that but that the job at hand again is to count the ballots and she understands there is a concern about the precinct. She says it will be reviewed or confirmed but their job is to sort the ballots for count by President in that video.

So the innuendo is they are being directed to ignore fraud. But the only evidence of fraud presented in the video is two people, pointing at a stack of ballots and saying they should be challenged while being told they aren't doing the job they are supposed to be doing and holding up the process. It appears from the collection of videos that they showed up to be videoed doing exactly this.

So, I don't know about signatures on ballots based on the videos.

[canpakes]

One nitpick, Honor.

They say they have ballots that they believe have the same signature on them and want to challenge them.

I'm seeing this all over Twitter. People think the ballots themselves are signed, and that multiple forged ballots are being counted. This is an impossibility because, like canpakes noted, the ballots aren't signed. This is a HUGE piece of the misinformation being pushed by the shitgibbons.

- Doc

Exactly.

“ ... claimed that there were 138 ballots with write-in-votes where the penmanship was ‘exactly the same’...

Not signatures,

No candidate identified,

No process detail,

No follow-through on the eventual disposition of those ballots.


But we’re supposed to overturn an election in which the winning candidate’s margin was better than 7 million votes because of this, lol.

[subgenius]

I know video doesn't convince guys like you but here:
https://rumble.com/vbzvl9-the-second-vi ... llots.html
and here
https://rumble.com/vbzvpp-the-third-vid ... ke-tw.html
and here
https://rumble.com/vbzvi7-precinct-no.- ... na-mi.html

watch all 3, and return with shovel for digging your trench deeper.

Remember how the issue you have is the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact?...

You are literally the guy insisting upon innuendo.
Please, point out in my post the portion(s) that are untrue, or not factual, given the requested videos offered in support of that same post.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So. Again. The jenius isn't going to explain himself, even when asked pointed questions to do so. Just more innuendo and shitgibbon posting.

damned POS seditionist.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Remember how the issue you have is the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact?...

You are literally the guy insisting upon innuendo.
Please, point out in my post the portion(s) that are untrue, or not factual, given the requested videos offered in support of that same post.

Your connecting fraud to the video is not factual. You yada yada fraud out of the evidence. Again you don't seem to know the difference between innuendo and facts.

You saying it wrong - the fraud is what will disenfranchise voters.

MI Sec of State Official Caught On Video Telling Volunteers To Count “Multiple Ballots with the very Same Signature” During “Audit” Of Votes In Antrim County

[canpakes]

You are literally the guy insisting upon innuendo.
Please, point out in my post the portion(s) that are untrue, or not factual, given the requested videos offered in support of that same post.

Hey, spineless fellow - do you believe that there was widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud in this election?

: D

[honorentheos]

If I were to choose to rely on innuendo and inference, it would go something more like this, subbie -

Evidence presented in video:

Couple being videoed holding up audit of risk limited audit in county in Michigan where there was a potential issue.
Male member of the couple states that, as a former state representative, he has concerns about vote in the county.
The couple is being told by their supervisor that they are interfering with the audit and refusing to do their job.

Inference:
This is a planned publicity stunt.

Innuendo:
Michigan conservatives are using claims of voter fraud to interfere with official audits to prevent proof voter fraud didn't happen.