4 ms·

Yes, I've seen that. It corroborates exactly what Giuliani was saying: the decision was made to bar observers and media from the room from the night, and the de

Yes, I've seen that. It corroborates exactly what Giuliani was saying: the decision was made to bar observers and media from the room from the night, and the decision was made to nonetheless continue vote counting activities in their absence. That's the whole problem. The only thing the statement adds is that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong. That is not the same thing as having observers. Even North Korea investigates its own elections and concludes that it does nothing wrong.

wlesieutre 6y ago
I must have missed the part of the video where media and observers were barred from the room, rather than simply having left. Could you give me a timestamp? With the whole thing being on camera and knowing that no secret ballot suitcases were smuggled in, are we to believe that in the absence of observers they somehow rigged the counting machines to mis-scan these ballots, even though the hand recount for Fulton only differed from the initial count by 0.07%?
- unanswered 6y ago
  The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots. Of course if you re-count the same ballots over again you'll come up with something roughly the same. This "hand recount had identical* results" mantra to reinforce the core idea "the election has been independently verified" may work on the general public but it shouldn't work on HN. There's no need to believe the suitcases were smuggled in, although you yourself appear to have doubts in that direction. For example, they could be perfectly authentic ballots with some flawed provenance. A priori this seems the most plausible explanation. > rather than simply having left. Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling.
  - javagram 6y ago
    > The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots But the provenance is on camera. Those ballots were right there with the rest of them. What exactly is the “auditing” you think the observers would have done that the Republican secretary of state’s staffer didn’t do?
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    If that’s the issue with the video, then why does everyone’s main concern about it seem to be that they came from a box under a table? There’s certainly an implication that these were fake ballots that had been snuck in surreptitiously, given that its origin was clearly shown in the same video but had been cut out. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But then why is it called “SuitcaseGate”? Does “StandardContainerOfAbsenteeBallotsGate” not have the same deliberately made implication? Beyond that, I don’t disagree that poll observers are important. But the ballots at this point had already been removed from both of their envelopes and stacked for scanning, while the observers were all present. If there was a flawed provenance to them, the observers observed it. At the point where those ballots were taken out of the box and scanned (again, all on camera) they’re nothing but pieces of paper with some bubbles filled in. There’s no name. There’s no date. There’s no voter address. There’s no signature. Just ballots. Any questions of their provenance could only have been addressed earlier when they were taken out of their envelopes under the supervision of the election observers. So with no observers present, they were pulled back out of the boxes and fed through the scanner. What did the observers need to observe that wasn’t captured on the surveillance tape? What part of this unobserved scanning process can’t be confirmed by a recount of the same ballots? > Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling. The Mitchell Harrison affidavit linked by another commenter specifically explains that he and Trevin McKoy came back that night and were escorted into the building. Counting had stopped before they arrived, but the point stands you’re bullshitting about it “having the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening.”
    - 6y ago

wlesieutre 6y ago

I must have missed the part of the video where media and observers were barred from the room, rather than simply having left. Could you give me a timestamp? With the whole thing being on camera and knowing that no secret ballot suitcases were smuggled in, are we to believe that in the absence of observers they somehow rigged the counting machines to mis-scan these ballots, even though the hand recount for Fulton only differed from the initial count by 0.07%?

unanswered 6y ago
The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots. Of course if you re-count the same ballots over again you'll come up with something roughly the same. This "hand recount had identical* results" mantra to reinforce the core idea "the election has been independently verified" may work on the general public but it shouldn't work on HN. There's no need to believe the suitcases were smuggled in, although you yourself appear to have doubts in that direction. For example, they could be perfectly authentic ballots with some flawed provenance. A priori this seems the most plausible explanation. > rather than simply having left. Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling.
- javagram 6y ago
  > The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots But the provenance is on camera. Those ballots were right there with the rest of them. What exactly is the “auditing” you think the observers would have done that the Republican secretary of state’s staffer didn’t do?
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  If that’s the issue with the video, then why does everyone’s main concern about it seem to be that they came from a box under a table? There’s certainly an implication that these were fake ballots that had been snuck in surreptitiously, given that its origin was clearly shown in the same video but had been cut out. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But then why is it called “SuitcaseGate”? Does “StandardContainerOfAbsenteeBallotsGate” not have the same deliberately made implication? Beyond that, I don’t disagree that poll observers are important. But the ballots at this point had already been removed from both of their envelopes and stacked for scanning, while the observers were all present. If there was a flawed provenance to them, the observers observed it. At the point where those ballots were taken out of the box and scanned (again, all on camera) they’re nothing but pieces of paper with some bubbles filled in. There’s no name. There’s no date. There’s no voter address. There’s no signature. Just ballots. Any questions of their provenance could only have been addressed earlier when they were taken out of their envelopes under the supervision of the election observers. So with no observers present, they were pulled back out of the boxes and fed through the scanner. What did the observers need to observe that wasn’t captured on the surveillance tape? What part of this unobserved scanning process can’t be confirmed by a recount of the same ballots? > Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling. The Mitchell Harrison affidavit linked by another commenter specifically explains that he and Trevin McKoy came back that night and were escorted into the building. Counting had stopped before they arrived, but the point stands you’re bullshitting about it “having the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening.”
  - 6y ago