Why does it matter what new reporters say? THey have no authority in the matter.

Actually, they were screaming about it for 4 years but they didn't care to target Dominion elections systems as a culprit.

“Counting or recording” @DrSammyD

Did they all just come up with the idea that counting was done for the day in GA? Their reports occurred prior to the people actually leaving the building, AFAICT.

Where's the requirment that they be there for processing?

Um... maybe because CISA actually did its job and kept the election fairly secure from cyber attacks... I mean that is what they are for. Trump appointed the head of that portion of Homeland Security.

@DrSammyD I’m comparing

yeah that's the exercise we keep going over and you're correct (I believe though I'm retarded also) the pieces don't seem to fit

Part to the counting running through the machine

I find this unlikely, given the footprints we've seen in Edison election data.

Do you have evidence that anyone working in the polling stations told everyone that they were done counting and leave only to keep counting?

@DrSammyD it says that the counting process was done under the law. With a election official present. No poll workers were told to go away however they were not required to be there

Well... I am gonna go out on a limb and say that CISA has a bit more info than you or I. They say the election was secure. Extrmely secure.

The DNI says otherwise, if you listen to John Radcliffe on the topic.

@Recalibar yeah the sent a majority of their workers home

So why does it matter if they were done being processed but not through the counting machine.

But they were told to continue counting after they realized they could @Recalibar

While the poll watchers and media were sent home, breaking the law.

Radcliffe? That political hack? LOL yeah ok

Also interesting how she counted the same stack four times.

Do you have evidence they didn't? There's sworn testimony suggesting the PWs were told to leave. There's circumstantial evidence that corroborates their testimony. You don't see anything like that from the other side..

And if you think I'm going to give serious consideration to a guy who asserts one thing happened, and then later recants his assertion vis a vis having not even looked at the evidence, then... You're wrong.

@DrSammyD because the counting part met the legal requirements to keep going

According to the 2018 EO, Trump is using his word to issue action against foreign actors. It's an important factor.

What was the legal requirements. Citation needed.

@Recalibar they were not sent home (poll watchers). They thought the show was over because they sent a majority of the workers home

there is none ... only complaint is that the poll watchers may have been misled ... but the remedy need not be to throw out ballots

The remedy is to allow for a signature match on those ballots. And to publish the scans of those ballots.

Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative? You do understand that is not how any of this works.

You are making the affirmative claim "X did Y, in violation of P".... as such you need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on those making the affirmative claim "saying something did happen"

Blah blah blah, it's a rhetorical question, my dude. Richard Barron needs to give testimony under oath. Until that happens, it's all impossible to say one way or the other.

If one dead voter is disenfranchised that's massive.

assuming those ballots were mail-in ... but those ballots are separated from the signatures now ... so now what?

Ruby Freeman and her daughter need to give testimony under oath, as well.

@jfindley typically people don’t write affidavits unless they were told to by lawyer. Or they want to pursue some legal Avenue. Most these poll workers just want to do their job and go home. They aren’t driven to push a issue. There is a signed affidavit from the other side

Im not sure what you are trying to establish. CISA was the agency under Homeland Security tasked with protecting our election (and many other things) from cyber attack. In a joint statement with other agencies they stated that it was the most secure election in American history. Now, I think that language is too colorful... but the point is... they found nothing.

I would be for publishing scans of ballots ... assuming it could be done with keeping the ballots secret

A majority, including the media, and the poll watchers. In the video, there were 7 people on staff. Four counters, 3 for oversight. Maybe you can reason there's a dem and rep poll watcher and one election official, but I'm partial to those three likely being elections officials given the affidavits, and the fact that a stack of ballots were counted three times in succession.

@jfindley it’s a ridiculous request. Unverifiable affidavits mean nothing to determining a truth.

You use the video to verify the affidavits.

I mean, that's what we're looking at, isn't it? There can be NO FAITH in our election system as it stands.

I dont even know who that is....

Let me know if I am wrong...
You are asserting that poll workers told some Republican Poll Watchers to leave... either by ordering them to do so or telling them that all the counting was done for the night.

That is an affirmative claim. I am simply asking what is your evidence to support that?