Vote Fraud!

Spread the love

Appar­ent­ly the dev­il real­ly did go down to Geor­gia!

Remem­ber when all HE dou­ble Tooth Picks broke out in Geor­gia!

The Media claimed that vote fraud did not exist.

The Democ­rats screamed and cried and act­ed like Prat­ing chil­dren.

Well this just in folks.

AUDIT ERRORS

The team’s analy­sis revealed that 923 of 1539 mail-in bal­lot batch files con­tained votes incor­rect­ly report­ed in Fulton’s offi­cial Novem­ber 3rd 2020 results. These inac­cu­ra­cies are due to dis­crep­an­cies in votes for Don­ald Trump, Joe Biden or total votes cast  com­pared to their report­ed audit totals for respec­tive batch­es. Thus, the error report­ing rate in Fulton’s hand count audit is a whop­ping 60%.

Break­ing News in Geor­gia!

Vis­it web­site

We knew it all along!

You knew it too!

Even if you were not entire­ly con­vinced!

You knew it!

WE all knew it because the demo­c­rat can­di­date was not up for the job and the peo­ple all knew it.

They knew it and we knew it!

Now you do not have to won­der about what hap­pened in the 2020 elec­tion.

DUPLICATE VOTES IN AUDIT RESULTS

One type of error dis­cov­ered involved dupli­cate report­ing of counts for batch­es of bal­lots. The Voter­GA data team found at least 36 batch­es of mail-in bal­lots with 4,255 total extra votes were redun­dant­ly added into the Ful­ton Co. audit results for the Novem­ber 3rd elec­tion. These illic­it extra votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Don­ald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jor­gen­son. 

FALSE AUDIT REPORTING

But it is not sim­ply a case of errors. The Voter­GA team found 7 fal­si­fied audit tal­ly sheets con­tain­ing fab­ri­cat­ed vote totals for their respec­tive batch­es. For exam­ple, a batch con­tain­ing 59 actu­al bal­lot images for Joe Biden, 42 for Don­ald Trump and 0 for Jo Jor­gen­son was report­ed as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump. The sev­en batch­es of bal­lot images with 554 votes for Joe Biden, 140 votes for Don­ald Trump and 11 votes for Jo Jor­gen­son had tal­ly sheets in the audit fal­si­fied to show 850 votes for Biden, 0 votes for Trump and 0 votes for Jor­gen­son.

Ful­ton Co. failed to include over 100,000 tal­ly sheets, includ­ing more than 50,000 from mail-in bal­lots, when the results were orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished for the full hand count audit con­duct­ed by the office of the Sec­re­tary of State for the Novem­ber 3rd 2020 elec­tion. Those tal­ly sheets remained miss­ing until late Feb­ru­ary when the coun­ty sup­ple­ment­ed their orig­i­nal audit results.

AUDIT PROCEDURAL FLAWS

All of this new evi­dence is in addi­tion to the evi­dence of coun­ter­feit bal­lots that formed the basis of the Ful­ton bal­lot inspec­tion law­suit. So why do all of these fraud and errors exist? The answer is in Voter­GA co-founder, Gar­land Favorito’s affi­davit that was com­plet­ed last year.  Favorito, the lead plain­tiff who is a career IT pro­fes­sion­al spe­cial­iz­ing in sys­tem devel­op­ment method­ol­o­gy and pro­ce­dures, found that in Ful­ton and many oth­er coun­ties:

  1. The SOS office estab­lished no pro­ce­dure for deal­ing with poten­tial coun­ter­feit mail-in bal­lots that audi­tors claim to have encoun­tered dur­ing the Ful­ton hand count audit
  2. Audit mon­i­tors were not allowed to get with­in 6’ of the tables so they were unable to deter­mine the mag­ni­tude of how many coun­ter­feit bal­lots may exist in the total count
  3. No one ensured that each audit table had an audi­tor rep­re­sent­ing each major polit­i­cal par­ty or can­di­date so there was no ver­i­fi­ca­tion of bal­lot counts audi­tors entered onto the tal­ly sheets
  4. No one mon­i­tored the data entry point so the data entry per­son could enter incor­rect totals or tal­lies dif­fer­ent than what audi­tors entered on the tal­ly sheets
  5. The tal­lies were entered in the SOS ARLO sys­tem so most coun­ties do not have any local record of their own audit results and must rely on the SOS office to tell them what their vote counts are. This audit report­ing pro­ce­dure adopt­ed by the SOS broke the chain of cus­tody and vio­lat­ed basic prin­ci­ples of bot­tom-up elec­tion report­ing,