#8 This is what they were referencing when writing the article:

"First, as Plaintiff admits, that this group of signatures lacks more than one comparator signature does not mean that “the signatures were invalid or fraudulent.” [...] Second, the standards that forensic document examiners use are not the same as the standards used by county elections officials. Forensic document examiners are often used in criminal cases; for example, they may be used to determine whether a criminal defendant has committed forgery or fraud. (...) The standards in such cases—often, beyond a reasonable doubt—are plainly not the same as those used by trained, but non-expert, county officials to adjudicate signature matches in the elections context, where the presumption is that a vote is valid."

Then from the article itself:

"There was also a Republican hand writing specialist who concluded that 6% of ballots had problematic signatures, which is significantly lower than the 8-10% figure reportedly cited by the Plaintiff from handwriting experts in the case."

I don't believe that's going anywhere. Which shows that the article was written to make it seem like it is going somewhere even though it isn't.

Providing false hope for clicks. If so then fuck that website.

If I'm wrong I'd be happy to hear it so please let me know if I'm missing something.

Disappointing!

EDIT: The first quote I'm referencing what they linked in the article if you click where it says "9% of the signatures" Sorry for not being clear!

#8 This is what they were referencing when writing the article:

"First, as Plaintiff admits, that this group of signatures lacks more than one comparator signature does not mean that “the signatures were invalid or fraudulent.” [...] Second, the standards that forensic document examiners use are not the same as the standards used by county elections officials. Forensic document examiners are often used in criminal cases; for example, they may be used to determine whether a criminal defendant has committed forgery or fraud. (...) The standards in such cases—often, beyond a reasonable doubt—are plainly not the same as those used by trained, but non-expert, county officials to adjudicate signature matches in the elections context, where the presumption is that a vote is valid."

Then from the article itself:

"There was also a Republican hand writing specialist who concluded that 6% of ballots had problematic signatures, which is significantly lower than the 8-10% figure reportedly cited by the Plaintiff from handwriting experts in the case."

I don't believe that's going anywhere. Which shows that the article was written to make it seem like it is going somewhere even though it isn't.

Providing false hope for clicks. If so then fuck that website.

If I'm wrong I'd be happy to hear it so please let me know if I'm missing something.

Disappointing!