Fri Sep 24 02:23:23 +0000 2021
[tweet] [link]
The below tweet is accurate. The Wake TSI report for Fulton County, PA pulled a similar trick. Conclude that the evidence didn't support fraud, but qualify that with enough findings that people can doubt the conclusion
Tweet of maricopacounty/1441228178001850371
[tweet] [link]
More info on the Wake TSI/Fulton Co, PA report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-2020-ballot-audits/2021/06/06/4e456952-bfe0-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html
[tweet] [link]
Here's how conservative Telegram's taking it.
Which, sure, it's a draft with notes in it, of course there will be updates to the final version.
But the executive summary is already written. It'd be weird if they found something new that requires the ES to be updated
[tweet] [link]
RE: "The leak's just a draft, real proof is in the final version"
The draft's dated 9/20. Today's 9/23. The audit team returned the ballots and equipment they had access to weeks ago.
Either they're sitting on their earth shattering evidence or it doesn't exist. Period.
[tweet] [link]
If they were clever enough to leak fake drafts, then jokes on us. Buuuuutttt I'm going to bet that's not what happened. Guess we'll know for sure tomorrow.
[tweet] [link]
Here's how they discuss the inclusion of Liz Harris' canvass.
They gloss over why they felt they needed to include results collected by unaffiliated volunteers that were not overseen by the AZ Senate (officially, at least)
Tweet of jeremyduda/1441249762666180608
[tweet] [link]
Since the audit presentation is imminent, I wanted to give a quick overview of how the draft report frames the findings. First, here's how they're determining the severity of a ballot related finding. You'll notice that it's only scoring based off the number of "ballots impacted"
[tweet] [link]
Given the subjectivity of this audit process, and the fact that they have previously made errors to the tune of 74,000 ballots, scoring severity based off the quantity of "impacted ballots" alone is disingenuous at best
[tweet] [link]
i.e., the first ballot finding for "mail-in ballots voted from prior address". @maricopacounty has already addressed this - there are multiple scenarios that CN failed to account for that could allow for legal votes that appear to be from a prior address
Tweet of maricopacounty/1441470631787200514
[tweet] [link]
For the 2nd critical finding, CN's criteria was to look for people with the same first, middle, and last name, that were also born in the same the year. While they rank it as "critical", their conclusion is more of a water pistol than a smoking gun
[tweet] [link]
Lots of folks are summing the total of "impacted ballots", but here are at least 10,000 ballots in a "critical" finding where CN's consensus boils down to: "this is possible but not common and needs further review"
Again, that's far from proof positive.
[tweet] [link]
Here's a "high" finding - "more ballots returned by voter than recvd". Out of the 4 possible explanations they present, only one is nefarious. They don't even back that possibility up with evidence, they just threw it in there.
[tweet] [link]
I wont cover each finding, but rest assured, the trend continues. Here's a medium finding - "More duplicates than original ballots". The potential root cause? They have no idea, so they blame it on the counties (very wise) decision not to participate in this sham audit
[tweet] [link]
tl;dr: You're going to see a lot of people adding up the number of "ballots impacted" and claiming each and every one of those ballots is fraudulent. Trump's already done exactly that in a statement released today. 1/4
[tweet] [link]
But if you actually read the report, you'll see that nearly every ballot finding was qualified with multiple possible explanations - most of which were benign - and in multiple cases CN says further review is needed.
And again, the severity was based of # of ballots only
2/4