And have to agree

Where's are leader? I guess at that conference... He should start a cult.

I am vacating from the 💩 conversation.. I’ll be back later. Over and out 🙋🏼‍♀️

Yes Beth... What can I do for you today? Please send the donation. Lord

Being omnipotent, but bad with money is the way I've rolled for eternity..

regarding the GA signature verification issue here is a response from the GA sec of state https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/brad-raffensperger-david-shafer-response-signature-audit/85-f42e59d4-445e-4d6c-affb-25374a1ecb24

@English Remi of note: "Judge Grimberg also rejected that there was sufficient evidence to indicate an improperly-done signature verification process had affected Georgia's results.

"Wood’s argument is that the procedures in the Settlement Agreement regarding information and signature match so overwhelmed ballot clerks that the rate of rejection plummeted and, ergo, invalid ballots were passed over and counted. This argument is belied by the record; the percentage of absentee ballots rejected for missing or mismatched information and signature is the exact same for the 2018 election and the General Election (.15%). This is despite a substantial increase in the total number of absentee ballots submitted by voters during the General Election as compared to the 2018 election," the judge wrote."

@English Remi also of note: "Because absentee mail-in ballots are separated from the envelopes they're submitted in, and because those envelopes are the only documentation on which there is a signature, in the event of an audit of those envelopes there would be no possible way to tie "bad" signatures to the actual votes they were cast with.

But the legal strategy of the president's advocates appears to be that if some number of invalid envelopes could be found, they could argue a larger class of absentee mail-in ballots could be thrown out - all the absentee ballots in Fulton County, for instance.

At least one federal judge has already rejected that idea. In dismissing a lawsuit brought by the attorney Lin Wood, Judge Steven Grimberg in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia noted that the suit wanted "over one million absentee ballots called into question" and that such "requested relief could disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate and erode the public’s confidence in the electoral process.""

I am this person and I fell asleep at the computer last night... GA did check signatures twice as part of the normal part of the election process - once when requesting a mail-in ballot and when the mail-in ballot is returned. In the case of an online ballot request, the voter had to supply their driver's license as part of their request. The driver's license record contains their signature. I personally think the only strange part of this portal request is that they allow the voter to specify where to send the ballot, which to me conflates mail-in ballot with absentee ballots. I think they should have different requirements/procedures. Mail-in ballots should only be sent to the address of record on the voter registration, in my opinion. But to your point about the online ballot request not having a signature verification - that is false. They use the DMV signature and/or the voter registration signatures to make a match, if a match was not made with them, the cure process kicked in and the voter was notified per the contact details on the voter registration.

The absentee ballot request portal was not part of the settlement agreement with the Dems (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/03/GA-Settlement-1.pdf) - that simply addressed the mail-in ballot rejection process. Signature matching is somewhat subjective. It says that all known signatures will be used to make a match and that 2/3 people are needed to reject it. Someone can't reject ballots by themselves and then they have to sign the ballot and write why it was rejected. Then, they have to notify the voter to give them a chance to come down and rectify the ballot. This agreement was entered into as a settlement to a court case and under the supervision of a judge, who accepted the agreement. As this was a decision about how to conduct the election, the Election Board was acting within the responsibilities that was granted to it by the State Legislature.

Oh you mean the DMV signatures that are stored at a lower “pixel” (it’s not pixels but something similar to that) count than the Dominion machine can accurately match?

https://youtu.be/ijjwS6h-PyU

and of course this

so what? same procedure was used in 2018 ... could it be made better? yes but is what was done illegal? unconstitutional? or is there evidence of fraud? ... so far all these have been looked at (numerous times, in numerous courts) by the courts and found to be negative

point by point...
*Just because it's the same procedure as a previous time doesn't make it a good procedure.
*The first thing that was done illegally was that the Secretary of State made a settlement agreement with the Democrat party of Georgia that resulted in a change to election procedures which is unconstitutional by both the state and federal constitutions as the legislature of the state are the only ones that have the right to change the laws governing election procedures.
-- These changes resulted in allowing the use of mail in ballots and removed all safeguards such that there was no way to verify that individual voters were connected in any way to the ballots that were mailed in. Because of this the only way to tell if fraud at that level took place is to do a signature verification audit which the Secretary of State refuses to do. So, basically, evidence of this can't be provided because the person with the evidence refuses to provide it.
*As to the cases being looked at numerous times by numerous courts; they have not. All cases have been dismissed on procedural issues so that evidence was never introduced and thus was never reviewed for substantiation.

I posted earlier this: "Wood’s argument is that the procedures in the Settlement Agreement regarding information and signature match so overwhelmed ballot clerks that the rate of rejection plummeted and, ergo, invalid ballots were passed over and counted. This argument is belied by the record; the percentage of absentee ballots rejected for missing or mismatched information and signature is the exact same for the 2018 election and the General Election (.15%). This is despite a substantial increase in the total number of absentee ballots submitted by voters during the General Election as compared to the 2018 election," the judge wrote." ... that would NOT be a procedural issue but in fact an evaluation of the evidence brought by the plaintiff (represented by Woods)

@Soburin the plaintiffs alleged that low signature rejection rate was indication of fraud but that rate was consistent with 2018 rejection rate when the number of mail-in ballots was less and no fraud was alleged

@Soburin also note that I explicitly said the procedure certainly could be made better but the fact that it could be better does NOT mean that what was done is illegal or that fraud has occurred. It is incumbent on the plaintiffs alleging fraud or illegality to prove such in a court of law under the rules for evidence and to the legal standard of proof ... so far that has not happened though numerous cases have been brought

The settlement agreement was from March of this year. Prior to that the mass mail in ballot thing wouldn't have been a thing so comparing to 2018 doesn't make any sense as any ballots mailed in in 2018 would have been absentee ballots which would have been handled under a more stringent authentication process.

@Soburin, you just advanced to level 7!

settlement agreement didn't change the law it just clarified the procedures for which the law would be followed ... mail-in ballots in 2018 were done under the same law as 2020

I agree it is incumbent on plaintiffs to prove fraud but if your evidence is controlled by the defense and they won't give you access to it... how do you go about doing that?

The settlement agreement did change the law. That's why Texas is suing Georgia, among others.

your evidence? if you have evidence bring it but if you merely suspect some evidence exist then you must show at least enough evidence for discovery

Smoke is billowing from a house. Do I have to enter the flames to prove there's a fire?

and when Texas loses that case that will settle the issue than in fact the law was not changed? YES?

Sure. Let's see what happens.

smoke? or smoke and mirrors?

Oh, there's lots of smoke.

I appreciate the feedback and discussion. Keep in mind that my comments to Robert were sent directly and not meant to be a comprehensive dissertation. Only so much needs to be said in that context. Robert asked if he could share my comments and I agreed. You can search and see that we have all discussed these issues at great length. In my comments, I was pointing out that the PA response had provided justification for the PA SC ruling and that supported the ruling on merit. It also made a case that Act 77 was believed to be constitutional when the Republican led legislature passed it (long before CoVid was a known thing).

In the first PA Act 77 case, the Rep legislators sued Boockvar for violating the provisions in Act 77 by making temporary accommodations during the pandemic (these were deemed necessary by the SotC and justified in her responsibility to ensure a safe and fair election). The Republicans sued Boockvar for not following Act 77 - never once suggesting it might be unconstitutional. The PA SC sided with Boockvar and the US SC voted 4-4 leaving the changes in place before the election (Chief Justice Roberts chose to let the temporary measures stand). In that regard, these issues being re-raised in the TX suit were already settled.

PA absolutely does signature verification. They also instituted a cure process where-in voters were notified of ballot rejections for whatever reason and allowed to come in and correct the issues. This is one of the complaints that Republicans made, because Boockvar sent out instructions to the whole state for curing. Rep-leaning counties chose not to follow the cure process, because they figured more mail-in ballots would be from Dems. When Biden won, they claimed that it was unfair that they chose not to follow the cure process.

Recounts, to my knowledge, never include signature verification. GA checked signatures on mail-in ballots when requested and when received.

It's not cheating when you follow your own state's laws.

yeah but who started the fire? and whose house is burning down?

Bad actors come in all shapes and sizes.

about 6'3", 240 lbs and $200 million richer since the election is what I'm thinking

Grifty Don

got to admire a guy who wins even in defeat

Indeed, perhaps envy.

hopefully not ... surely you can admire what you don't envy

$200 is probably chump change for him.

200 mil. ^

He probably uses $100 as TP.

exactly ... lots of chumps giving their change to him

Zing