It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: djz3ro
originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: JAGStorm
For those not local, the two counties that the Trump questioned did NOT use a Dominion counting system.
As long as Dominion is somewhere in the aggregation process, the downstream method of tabulation is supposedly immaterial.
Supposedly but can you prove it? I mean actual proof, not hearsay
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: djz3ro
originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: JAGStorm
For those not local, the two counties that the Trump questioned did NOT use a Dominion counting system.
As long as Dominion is somewhere in the aggregation process, the downstream method of tabulation is supposedly immaterial.
Supposedly but can you prove it? I mean actual proof, not hearsay
A forensic audit would but apparently the chain of custody seems to be having a lot of mishaps; destroyed ballots, wiped data, missing thumb drives and such. I'm sure it's all just innocent little mistakes and nothing done intentionally.
I then sign and they compare that signature to the voter registration signature that comes up by swiping my license. No one else can vote as me unless really good fraudulent ID and forgery.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: JAGStorm
Back of the hand or forehead...
originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: JAGStorm
its going to be rejected because the evidence of fraud was not submitted in the original case which is why it was tossed. no new evidence is allowed in appeals case.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JAGStorm
This just got tossed.
Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the court’s three liberals in the decision. He wrote: “We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even—and maybe especially—in high-profile cases. Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law."