Im not watching 20 mins of OAN opinions. Find me some evidence and I will address it

Sometimes one has to explore the source and make up ones own mind. See past the bias.

There were many experts and professionals who testified about clear irregularities. People who worked many years as poll observers and watchers.

If we are going to treat oan as more than a tabloid I want an audit recount and fraud investigation into their factchecking policies

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

I watch over 5 hours of hearings today... about 3 yesterday. I have seen nothing that would amount to "clear irregularities"

@JD~Jordan, you just advanced to level 4!

Well how about we start with CNN on fact checking

I dont watch or post CNN

They are an opinion based network just like FOX and OAN

And MSNBC

You posting OAN is like me posting HuffPost

its a waste of all our times

I use all media, they all have resources...have to use multiple sources. For example as crap as cnn is they broke the pardon story earlier.

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

@JonasRobert, you just advanced to level 1!

JD - it's better to listen to more than 3 hours of the hearings, at least 7 hours as they have very good testimony and it becomes more clear on the ways that the ballot process was handled

I use lots of sources just to see what is going on.... but you cant rely on CNN or FOX or really any 1 source to tell the whole story without slant

I listened to 5 today and 3 yesterday. I work... doing the best I can

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

There is that word again "a person COULD" ok... did they? Is there any proof that they did?

Fair enough JD, just saying there is a lot of valuable info in the testimony, lots that can be missed

Okay theres different real news networks with bias but OAN isnt a network it's just Trump propaganda sycophants willing to say anything to kiss up to him. They say he definitively has 410 electoral votes

If its a "Could" then by all means lets fix it if we can. But unless there is evidence to suggest someone DID then well why do we think there was fraud?

Someone COULD go to a polling place we an AK 47 and steal all the ballots. But unless there is evidence to suggest that happened what is the point in discussing it except to cover that possibility next time around?

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

At least newsmax was like swing states are under lawsuits

I have seen that... the problem is the company that provided the machines say the sharpies were NO problem at all

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

No machines were designed with flaws intentionally that is hogwash

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

Can anyone tell me where the actual claims can be read that Robert shares with us? I know they are public:) thx

I am not saying the email doesnt exist. I am saying that he is simply wrong. The people that build the machines say the sharpies pose no problem. If we assume that they do (which is silly do to) its certainly not fraud

Sharpies were used because they don't smug

They are actually better than other type pens... it dries faster

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.

@JonasRobert, you just advanced to level 2!

Sharpies not being counted by machines wasn't the issue.

Sharpies being used to heuristically discriminate against ballots vs pens is. You can identify a Day of Vote via sharpie and give it greater scrutiny.

V

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