> I think your theory is extremely implausible based on how elections are administered and ballots counted. I sincerely think you would benefit from being a par

> I think your theory is extremely implausible based on how elections are administered and ballots counted. I sincerely think you would benefit from being a part of the process next time around -- it's kind of fun and you learn a lot. This is kind of like when footage of Wilder-Fury came out and Fury "appeared" to have something wrong with his gloves that would have been a violation of the rules. The internet was abuzz with theories about whether he had "cheated." Teddy Atlas went on a podcast and said "its impossible" for him to have cheated or had gloves that were out of regulation. Why did he say this so confidently when he wasn't even there? He generalized from other fights he had participated in, and assumed that things must have occurred the same way in Wilder-Fury because that's what he expected. This is what you're doing. You have no way of knowing that the process was respected in this case, which is why its interesting that you're so confident that it must have been respected. If we have reasons to be that confident, we should probably share them. But the quality of evidence used to dismiss concerns here is worse than the quality of the evidence that created those concerns. > An observer says she was ordered to leave the room even though some counting continued. Other people in the room (including other Republicans) describe it differently. Yeah, there are different accounts of what happened. Thats a red flag, it indicates that someone may be trying to hide something. Thats another reason to investigate. > Investigators who watched the tape say it doesn't look like anyone was told to leave, but there's no audio on the tape. Interesting how easily they draw conclusions based on no evidence. > I'm not sure you're going to get much more of a definitive answer than that. Then there's a problem with election integrity that hasn't been addressed. > But there's just a massive gap between "ballots were briefly recounted on video without Republican observers" and any sort of fraud. The gap is actually not that large, and if we presume that people who want to compromise an election are not idiots, we can easily understand that this is pretty much exactly what ballot stuffing would look like if we had a video of it. > The tape shows the ballot boxes involved were supposed to be there. That hasn't been supported with evidence, the investigator's report, or the chain of custody. It's just an assertion of fact by a person who wasn't there. If the ballot boxes were supposed to be there then it probably was a terrible idea to hide them under a table since it creates the appearance of impropriety and they are apparently unable to relieve that appearance by presenting evidence. > And it would require a truly impressive conspiracy to manifest thousands of bogus ballots into the process at this point. Not at all, it would merely require a few motivated participants to corrupt the process by introducing fraudulent/illegal ballots and running them through the machine. It would be even easier if they did it in the middle of the night, when (R) observers had left.