There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: johnnylaw16

You

Please point to a provision in the law that this video proves was violated.

The questions to you then..

Does the video show vote center actives being conducted with no observers/oversight?

Irrelevant...

Section § 21-2-408 of the Code Of Georgia, which addresses poll watchers, explains that political bodies and parties are "entitled" to have official poll watchers. The secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

Also true!

a reply to: djz3ro

It is relevant.

Because there is no accountability on what and how it was counted.

This helps making the cause of fraud.

Your source.

secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

What is the actual wording of Georgia law. What is the actual wording of the procedures.

originally posted by: Xabi87

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: neutronflux
How does the video support that votes were handled in good faith, credible, and with every effort to comply with vote handling procedures and law?

Likewise how does the video support that votes were being MISHANDLED?

You don't know WHAT is being handled. It could be todays lunch orders, or used tally sheets, or envelopes, or darn near anything.

Until someone who know what is supposed to be happening there can explain it, we just don't know.

We should KNOW exactly what is being handled though... that is the point. Fair and transparent eh? So the fact that that box COULD be fake votes and WE DON'T KNOW means the election was not fair and transparent.

We do know what was being handled, ballots, legally.

Frances Watson, chief investigator for the Georgia secretary of state, told Lead Stories during a phone call on December 3, 2020, that the ballots were in standard containers, and the work during the time in question had nothing to do with pulling ballots from under a table. She said:

There wasn't a bin that had ballots in it under that table. It was an empty bin and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table.

There was never an announcement made to the media and other observers about the counting being over for the night and them needing to leave, according to Watson, who was provided information by the media liaison, who was present. She said they just followed the "cutters" as they left.
She said:

Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do. And It was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working.

In addition, she explained that the only ballots that were scanned after the media and other observers had left were those that had already been opened in front of these observers.
Contrary to the claim, the ballots were not in suitcases, she said. The black boxes and bins seen in the video are the standard container used for the ballot counting process.
A state election board monitor, who asked for his name not to be used due to safety concerns, told Lead Stories on the phone on December 3, 2020, that he was present at the vote counting location beginning at 11:52 p.m., after leaving briefly at earlier in the evening. He then stayed until about 12:45 a.m., when the work that night was completed.
The deputy chief investigator for the secretary of state's office was present beginning at 12:15 a.m. November 4, he said.

This is all from a link provided by carewemust.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: djz3ro

It is relevant.

Because there is no accountability on what and how it was counted.

This helps making the cause of fraud.

Your source.

secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

What is the actual wording of Georgia law. What is the actual wording of the procedures.

Read it for yourself: law.justia.com...

a reply to: johnnylaw16

You supposedly the lawyer? Please by all means point out where the law supports “ secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.”

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: djz3ro

It is relevant.

Because there is no accountability on what and how it was counted.

This helps making the cause of fraud.

Your source.

secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

What is the actual wording of Georgia law. What is the actual wording of the procedures.

Read it for yourself: law.justia.com...

I was going to make a joke about deferring to my esteemed colleague johnnylaw16 but decided to go look myself, you still beat me to it. Thank you.

So, the theory is that there was massive fraud by the democrats. And yet, while Biden won the election, the down ballot elections didn’t favor the democrats. Doesn’t seem strange to right wingers at all? It’s clear what happened. Many voters, republican and democrat, did not want another disastrous four years with trump at the helm. But they voted pretty much normally for the other representatives. It’s not magic, or fraud. The people just chose “not trump”.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: johnnylaw16

You supposedly the lawyer? Please by all means point out where the law supports “ secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.”

The whole article. It says "entitled" over and over, not "mandated" or "must have".

Poll watchers are "entitled" to watch over but there is nothing to say they are legally bound to be there.

originally posted by: pexx421
So, the theory is that there was massive fraud by the democrats. And yet, while Biden won the election, the down ballot elections didn’t favor the democrats. Doesn’t seem strange to right wingers at all? It’s clear what happened. Many voters, republican and democrat, did not want another disastrous four years with trump at the helm. But they voted pretty much normally for the other representatives. It’s not magic, or fraud. The people just chose “not trump”.

It was Trump people turned out for and in huge numbers. No one turned out to protest his rallies or for Biden's rallies. Your explanation doesn't mesh with reality.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: johnnylaw16

You supposedly the lawyer? Please by all means point out where the law supports “ secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.”

The whole article. It says "entitled" over and over, not "mandated" or "must have".

Poll watchers are "entitled" to watch over but there is nothing to say they are legally bound to be there.

Precisely. You don't need a law degree to read. There is no requirement in the law anywhere that poll watchers be present when ballots are counted. They may be present, but counting does not need to stop because they leave.

a reply to: djz3ro

Still waiting on the law to be quoted. No opinions.

In the meantime.
Then how is the accountability of the persons counting maintained, how is the authenticity of the ballots maintained, and how is the accuracy of the count verified with no observers?

So? your saying the system is open to fraud.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: pexx421
So, the theory is that there was massive fraud by the democrats. And yet, while Biden won the election, the down ballot elections didn’t favor the democrats. Doesn’t seem strange to right wingers at all? It’s clear what happened. Many voters, republican and democrat, did not want another disastrous four years with trump at the helm. But they voted pretty much normally for the other representatives. It’s not magic, or fraud. The people just chose “not trump”.

It was Trump people turned out for and in huge numbers. No one turned out to protest his rallies or for Biden's rallies. Your explanation doesn't mesh with reality.

I don't even know what this post is supposed to saying or how it is in any way relevant to the post to which it is responding. Feel free to clarify, but until then:

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Is this the portion of the law you're discussing?

(3) A county election superintendent may, in his or her discretion, after 7:00 A.M. on the day of the primary, election, or runoff open the inner envelopes in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this subsection and begin tabulating the absentee ballots. If the county election superintendent chooses to open the inner envelopes and begin tabulating such ballots prior to the close of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff, the superintendent shall notify in writing, at least seven days prior to the primary, election, or runoff, the Secretary of State of the superintendent's intent to begin the absentee ballot tabulation prior to the close of the polls. The county executive committee or, if there is no organized county executive committee, the state executive committee of each political party and political body having candidates whose names appear on the ballot for such election in such county shall have the right to designate two persons and each independent and nonpartisan candidate whose name appears on the ballot for such election in such county shall have the right to designate one person to act as monitors for such process. In the event that the only issue to be voted upon in an election is a referendum question, the superintendent shall also notify in writing the chief judge of the superior court of the county who shall appoint two electors of the county to monitor such process.

originally posted by: pexx421
So, the theory is that there was massive fraud by the democrats. And yet, while Biden won the election, the down ballot elections didn’t favor the democrats. Doesn’t seem strange to right wingers at all? It’s clear what happened. Many voters, republican and democrat, did not want another disastrous four years with trump at the helm. But they voted pretty much normally for the other representatives. It’s not magic, or fraud. The people just chose “not trump”.

Exactly!

I’m in AZ. That is exactly what some Independents and some Republicans, I know, told me

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: djz3ro

Still waiting on the law to be quoted. No opinions.

In the meantime.
Then how is the accountability of the persons counting maintained, how is the authenticity of the ballots maintained, and how is the accuracy of the count verified with no observers?

So? your saying the system is open to fraud.

No, I'm saying there is no legal requirement for counting to stop when poll watchers leave. If you want me to quote the law it will be the whole article, which you could read by clicking the link.

There is no specific part of it that deals with that, there would be if it was a legal requirement. Since there is no mention of a legal requirement one can safely surmise that there is indeed no legal requirement.

It isn't rocket science and makes perfect logical sense.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Is this the portion of the law you're discussing?

The whole of § 21-2-408

Just search in page for "entitled" you'll see all the relevant sections...

a reply to: djz3ro

I meant specifically the part that doesn't legally obligate anyone to be there to observe. That is it, correct?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

The post I was responding to said this:

"It’s clear what happened. Many voters, republican and democrat, did not want another disastrous four years with trump at the helm. But they voted pretty much normally for the other representatives. It’s not magic, or fraud. The people just chose “not trump”."



I wrote this:

"It was Trump people turned out for and in huge numbers. No one turned out to protest his rallies or for Biden's rallies. Your explanation doesn't mesh with reality. "


If you can't understand what I wrote and how it relates to what I responded to, you need help thinking. I can't help you with that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: djz3ro

I meant specifically the part that doesn't legally obligate anyone to be there to observe. That is it, correct?

It's through the whole thing, there is no legal obligation so it doesn't mention one. Just they are entitled to them. This is my understanding anyway, hope it helps.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: djz3ro

I meant specifically the part that doesn't legally obligate anyone to be there to observe. That is it, correct?

That sounds relevant, but where are you quoting from Augustus?

In the law cited by dj, in relevant part it states:

"(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a poll watcher may be permitted behind the enclosed space for the purpose of observing the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes."

The key phrase there being "may be."