I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in here before, but I was just listening to tonight's podcast and he briefly mentions sharpiegate...There was a segment that OAN did where Ron Watkins explains what the sharpie debacle could have been about, it starts @9m50s if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=746HTjhFifA

Would explain the leaked email about requiring sharpies on election day

It's not very helpful to just attack the source and ignore the substance of the argument.

That is why I included the timestamp to the pertinent parts. The part where Ron Watkins is interviewed is what I'm referring to, its 2-3m long and within that part he addresses the sharpies

the tldr is that the machines put scanned ballots that are deemed erroneous in a folder for a person to "adjudicate". One could make all the ballots "unreadable" by altering the gamma settings of the scanner, the darker sharpie ink would help the person adjudicating the votes quickly identify the in person election day ballots

I agree that some sources are more biased than others, some are very very biased...but simply saying a source is biased does not refute a claim made on a certain network. It's silly to try to invalidate ALL information on these grounds

Well, we have an email from an election supervisor that says "we know there are problems with sharpies, pre-election day only use pens. on election day you must use sharpies." and then we have election machines designed with major security flaws, one of which lets a human intervene and swap votes based on a picture of the ballot. There is never going to be a super smoking gun, but there doesn't need to be

there is literally an email from the election supervisor saying "i know yall have been having problems with the sharpies"

I'm going to not reply anymore if you aren't willing to take the 3 min to just watch the video clip lol. He specifically talks about how it was a "feature" not a "flaw"

its only a flaw from a security perspective

So you think we should just believe something because the company that manufactured the product tells us to?

car companies say their cars are safe, food companies say their food is sanitary, drug companies say their drugs are safe, etc etc.

in any other context we view these claims with a big grain of salt

I understand that you think you're making a good point, but because you didnt watch the video you don't realize that you're responding to a completely different and unrelated claim lol

yes, exactly!

I don't know what you're talking about. The email was not nameless.

https://nationalfile.com/leak-email-allegedly-from-maricopa-elections-office-found-issue-with-sharpies-said-use-them-on-election-day-anyway/

The person who wrote the email was on the ground using the machines, it was in response to her own poll workers who said they were having problems with sharpies

but like someone else said, the claim is NOT that sharpies were used to make trump votes not be read by the machines. the claim is that they were used to help distinguish in person election day votes

so when you combine the claims from the video above^^ w/ the very odd fact that they wanted to not use sharpies any time other than on election day...how do we reconcile these weird data points?

😂

lololol

I cannot tell if you're trolling or not lol

literally, the issue is ***not*** that the machines had trouble reading sharpies or whatever you keep talking about. I dont know how to make this any clearer to you, yet you keep saying it lol

who knows? can you pardon someone for a crime that haven't been convicted of? I thought that was the issue with the sheriff from Arizona

Arpeio or whatever his name was

yes and haven't we seen election officials fighting tooth and nail to NOT let ballots or machines be audited?

Yes I was thinking about Nixon when the AZ sheriff thing happened, I seem to recall them saying he had to be convicted first, but I could be remembering wrong

In GA for example, the SOS said ballots would be audited and then backtracked. He's also trying to prevent the machines from being examined.

Can you give me an example of what you would consider to qualify as "evidence"? I keep hearing this claim and it seems like people have a very unrealistic standard for what qualifies as evidence

No I'm saying hypothetically, what would be convincing to you? If you were king of US elections, in this case what are some examples of what you would need to see to be convinced the election was stolen?

maybe use different levels? what evidence would you need to see to think a hardcore audit is appropriate? and then what evidence would convince you to overturn the results

I'm just asking for some examples, I realize there could be different things

No im not

I'm saying: imagine you are the final person that certifies the election. Trump team is saying it was stolen. Give me a handful of examples of evidence they would need to show for you to be convinced they are correct? you aren't assuming its not stolen. they need to show you the evidence. what evidence do they need?

Okay. And what would be some examples of what such evidence would look like?

The point I'm getting at is how people keep saying "no evidence of fraud", I think you've said it once or twice in this convo. There IS evidence. The R&R podcast has said this over and over again. He's shown a bunch of it.

respectfully, it's absurd to say "there is no evidence". If you say, "there is not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt"...that would be much more valid. I might even agree with you

Again, there IS evidence. Literally hundreds of pages of evidence. This part is indisputable. The question is "is the evidence enough?"

I feel like anyone who says "there is no evidence" or "there is no evidence of widespread..." etc, should give an example of what such evidence would look like. Otherwise people can just keep parroting this line that is very clearly untrue

The lower judge excluded the evidence from the brief

I'm not taking the position that there is or isn't sufficient evidence at this time. I'm trying to get someone to describe what sufficient evidence WOULD look like. So far, no one can do that.

I want YOU (or someone else) to simply give an example of the minimum level of evidence required to convince you lol. Obviously what is available thus far has not convinced you.

okay...what would you consider "something solid"?

@JD~Jordan @james j I think you guys need to just consider what you're saying in another context. Imagine Jim is accused of murder. If their business rival claims they saw them commit the murder...that IS evidence, but probably not enough to convince many ppl. But what if also we had a video of Jim leaving the murder scene...thats more evidence. Maybe still not enough though. What if we found Jim's DNA on the dead body? Maybe we could find an explanation, but the case gets stronger and stronger. What if we found the murder weapon in Jim's car? That still isn't 100% definitive proof. There could be some explanation, but at that point, most juries are gonna say he's guilty. Maybe some juror's would have been convinced at an earlier point. Maybe some still wouldnt convict.

@JD~Jordan @james j What I'm asking is to apply the same logic to this election stuff. and to give an example of what evidence you personally would need.

@JD~Jordan @james j what we have now is SOME evidence, statistical evidence and witness testimony. I think it's perfectly fair for you to say that's not enough. I'm just curious what would be enough? Also @JD~Jordan you did not give any example you just kept asking for me to give you evidence lol. if you dont wanna participate thats fine, ill leave it to @james j or anyone else

okay, i will accept what you're saying as true. but my question still stands - what WOULD be evidence, in your mind?

im sry maybe I missed it, will you plz copy/paste?

"something they present that can’t be refuted. I don’t know what evidence for wide spread voter fraud would be." this is what I saw you post

I feel like you're making a good faith attempt but my whole point was to eventually hope that you would realize that maybe you expect an unrealistic standard for what evidence would be needed? if you cannot even describe what your evidence would potentially look like....

just try to remember that people literally go to prison for life based on witness testimony, I think in this case because the stakes are so high, people have unrealistic standards of evidence, thats all

all evidence is refutable unless you have someone on tape

and a recording of someone committing the crime is not needed for many many convictions

@JD~Jordan you spent half of this convo not even understanding what the issue over sharpies is LOL. @james j and I have a disagreement but hes not being a jerk about it

agree totally.

well i agree totally with the 2nd part. i personally feel the evidence we have is verifiable and useable, but I understand someone not agreeing with that as well

I also agree, the null hypothesis has to be that the election was fair. I think there are 2 broad categories of evidence. One is technical rule violations that took place. Like SOS changing election rules, poll watchers being kept at a distance, etc. I think there is a good argument to be made that these votes should be excluded regardless of any other evidence. On the issue of ***actual fraud***, I think the strongest evidence is simply the statistical anomalies combined with the irregular observations we saw. As one example, in GA they say they are going to stop counting ballots because a pipe burst. But it turns out there is no record of a repair person coming to fix the pipe. There is a text message describing the pipe burst as a "big over exaggeration"...then shortly after these abrupt pause of reporting ballot counts, suddenly Biden mounts a massive come back that defies all other trends we see around the country. Not to mention, we see similar occurrences in a handful of cities...an abrupt and unexplained pause, followed by a massive Biden surge. The places we observe this were only in the handful of places critical for Biden to win.

I could accept explaining away one or two such anomalies

but not as many as we saw. at some point, the burden should shift to the other side. which they could easily do by simply letting people come and audit the ballots and machines, but they refuse

on top of that, there are witnesses claiming they saw problems w/ the ballots. but you asked for the "strongest" evidence

Yes I realize this is a polarizing opinion, but I think the rules of the election must take priority over covid

sure there is, votes are thrown out every year when rules are not followed

you are conflating the issues because here we are talking about ***a lot*** of votes

you just repeated exactly what I said

When individual votes are processed in a way that doesnt abide by the law, those votes are thrown out. This happens every election. What would be new would be to throw out ***so many*** votes. But the law doesn't change based on the sum total of votes.

this is getting away from the "fraud" stuff though, more on the technical legal aspects

I agree that this should be the case. but in application we have real people deciding cases and social pressures are clearly a factor

Some terms were changed by the GOP, yes. This isn't what I'm referring to though. The law on poll watchers having access to the ballots were never changed in the statutes, that was an administrative decision which violates the text & spirit of the law. The purpose of having the watchers there is so both sides can verify the validity of absentee ballots. Simply being inside of the room does not accomplish this. Because these absentee ballots were processed without both sides being able to verify the signatues, envelopes, etc, I think they should be thrown out, because they weren't processed according to what the laws require.

yes^^

admitted what?

oh sry I see

the lawyers admitted they were "present", because they were in the room. That wasn't their argument though. Their argument was they werent allowed to observe the ballots

6 feet is even too far. You have to be able to verify each signature

Imagine you get carded trying to buy a beer and you try to show your ID from 6 feet away lol

That simply isnt reasonable, you have to be extremely close

I am fine conceding that not every affidavit or suit is bullet proof. But this does nothing to dispute the rest of the body of evidence. And simply saying "because some ppl submitted a spammy affidavit we are going to discount EVERYONES affidavit" doesnt make sense

I think it would be helpful if people spent more time describing the laws, purpose, and procedures regarding the watchers w/ regard to absentee ballots. The notion that the campaign had people "present in the room" is complete nonsense.

this is simply not true

they DO have say in signature verification, in literally every election we have ever had

this is why I just said this: "I think it would be helpful if people spent more time describing the laws, purpose, and procedures regarding the watchers w/ regard to absentee ballots. The notion that the campaign had people "present in the room" is complete nonsense."

I dont think youre purposefully wrong but maybe you just arent familiar with how it works?

Look guys, for context. Here is a picture of absentee ballots being processed in pre-covid times. You can see the observers are extremely close. They are able to compare the ballots against voter rolls, compare signatures, check for problems, etc.

here is a picture of a PA observer doing the same process lol

"poll watching" is different

but in some states the "6 ft" rule wasnt even observed. look at the pictures of the binocular guy. even if I concede that 6 ft is adequate, which it is not, you still have to contend with the fact they didnt even follow their own 6 foot rule. hence, the ballots should be tossed

PA, for example

you're missing the point mate. let's all assume 6 feet is fine. if observers are kept at 20 feet instead of 6 feet, what do we do?

if someone breaks the rules you can have them removed. you cannot circumvent the rules because you think they might be broken lol

If the rule says let ppl be 6 feet away, but you make them be 20 feet away, YOU broke the rules.

No, I'm saying that in places where observers were unable to observe the ballots, the ballots must be thrown out.

you are nitpicking over 6 feet vs further so I'm conceding the distance part to show how irrelevant it is

what I said is ballots must be thrown out if the observers werent able to observe. then you kept talking about 6 feet being necessary, presumably because you dont understand what "observing" the ballots entails.

then, to try to help you understand the logic of tossing ballots when the rules arent followed, I said "okay lets assume 6 feet was the rule and is fine. in some places, observers were kept farther than 6 feet, we should toss them because they didnt follow the observation rules."

everyone in here seems to understand (even if they disagree) except for you lol

You need to understand the issue better to speak intelligently on this subject. The issue isn't precisely the distance, it is **access to observe the ballots**. For example, in grade school you could observe your teachers paper when they put it on that machine that enlarged and projected it on the wall or to a monitor that you were close to. Observers could be 100 feet away if the workers projected each ballot to a high definition monitor that an observer was watching, and the observer had a way to object, etc.

Similarly, an observer could be 6 inches away but not allowed to object to ballots. This would be equally problematic.

In places where the laws regarding absentee ballot observers were not followed, the ballots must be thrown out. The laws are there to ensure integrity of the process, and to mandate the procedure of processing the ballots. If you dont follow the law, that is a problem.

Yes I was speaking in generality because I expected you to understand the issue without me typing an essay on the specifics

Robert is the most unbiased commentator I've found. I'm pro-trump and at least a couple times per stream I'll find myself being like "gah robert is a fucking moron how could he say the evidence wont convince a judge?!" But IMO that's a ***good*** sign. You should not always be happy and in agreement about what your information sources have to say.

I don't think Robert's biases have shifted or become more transparent...I think we have seen the evidence get gradually stronger over time and so his commentary reflects that?

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1334729767904567303/pu/vid/640x1136/deKOmq_JrAHGaiIy.mp4?tag=10

Can anyone explain whats happening in this video?!

this was one of the ppl working on the absentee ballots in GA state farm arena, she was also one of the 4-5 ppl who stayed behind after poll watchers and media was sent away on election night

https://streamable.com/4hkf28

then in a separate video she appears to slyly hand something off to a worker, who then even more suspiciously hands it off to another worker. ppl are saying it is a USB drive but I cannot tell for sure, wanted to get other opinions or thoughts