not open 10 scan 10

I think you may wish to nail down your accusation you are talking about... if you are talking about the one where Team Trump showed video of what they claimed was a Blond Lady ordering the poll watcher to leave... there were not dozens of people there so no way where their dozens of claims.

If this is the episode you are referring to... this has been addressed. They were not asked to leave. Nothing illegal took place in that video.

In approximately 10 days, the DNI's issued report to Trump may allow him the opportunity to use this information according to his 2018 EO to issue a state of marshal law.

@jfindley he said he had to review the video. I didn’t even get to hear what question they asked him. Newsmax is pro Trump propaganda news.

I'm talking about the news reporters that were saying "it's all over for the day in GA. They'll pick it back up tomorrow".

Not even acknowledging the testimony of the poll watchers who said they were literally told to leave.

@Recalibar where is Russia. In all this. ? Im guessing they dont want to say anything negative about Russia

1) may versus shall 2) no reason to call anyone retarded, we're all retarded at times

@DrSammyD may be , not have to be

I'd imagine they tapped into the Dominion servers in 2016.

So they don't need to be their for the processing either.

How are you getting to that @DrSammyD

You know no one is talking about is the tax dollars being flushed down the toilet as a result of this moronic claims and lies

Has anyone watched that video , I feel like it answers all these question

may versus shall in the language of the law

I would not be at all surprised if both Russia and China were using the Dominion machines to sway elections one way or another. The security is a mess and the media won't report on it at all.

Maybe I am a retard, I'm not seeing the pieces fit.

Yeah @meglide may is not a shall

You just said "May". I see no "Shall" be present in any respect to the processing or counting.

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