Officials said evidence of systemic fraud has already started to show
(media.greatawakening.win)
? B O O M ! ?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (104)
sorted by:
Why didn't the dems just destroy the ballots you know like deleting emails and smashing phones because you can get away with that
Because they’re extremely lazy and arrogant. They assume the media will cover for them, while they use their own criminal influence to get judges and lawyers to back off
After 9/11 happened, on all the official online remembrances, the crooks only bothered to fill in identities of 300-400 of the ‘victims.’ Almost all the people who ‘died’ are nothing more than a name and a shitty low quality picture. And nobody ever challenged them on that, so why would they think they’d get challenged on this sort of thing? Normies just repeat the meme “not everyone came from a loving family,” to explain away the fact that no obituaries or remembrances or memories were given for 75% of the ‘victims.’
I guess my point is every criminal endeavor they pull off is riddled with holes that they never bother to go patch up. It’s why it’s all so obvious to anyone who looks with an open mind.
Great points. The bottom line is question everything. The holes are there for anyone that bothers to look.
Who is to say they didn't?
There was a lot of time before the audits began. One of the theories floating around is they destroyed extremely fabricated ballots a long time ago, and use this time to print ballots that were cleaner and would less likely fail a scrutiny test.
That is why the blacklights are being used. I don't know for sure if they are checking for water marks, but they are definitely checking for something, most likely folds or fingerprints.
That is why the testing appears to be extremely thorough, they look like they are photographing every single ballot and tagging results to them.
I originally thought they were looking for fingerprints (as a printed stack would have few or none), but saw the auditors were not wearing gloves.
We don't know for sure what the black lights are testing. But they are looking for "something" when using them.
Noticed that too
I saw a post on Gab that they're using them to look for oils left by human handling.
Black lights can also show differences in the paper. One more simple way to tell a counterfeit ballot from a real one - the paper itself. There should be a record of a legitimate printing company and the type of paper they used for printing ballots. So, unless the counterfeit ballots from China used the exact same paper, oops. The same holds true for inks. These are actually pretty ingenious and low tech ways to verify a real ballot from a counterfeit. The Dems are not that smart. Watermarks would be great, but in the end not necessary.
I think a combination of arrogance (thought they were too smart to get caught) and ignorance (didn't think there was a possibility of a watermark) is why they didn't destroy the ballots. Of course, an alternative theory is that they planned for this audit all along, made sure all traces of fraud were deleted, acted like they were really worried about being audited, only to say after it's all done, "See, there was no fraud!".
Ballots, by law, are supposed to be held for at least 24 months after an election. If they destroyed the ballots a few months after an election, I'm sure that would of sparked some sort of investigation. There wouldn't be any good excuse to justify destroying the ballots.
Well, elections, by law, are supposed to not be rigged :-)
I don't think the DS really cares about the law...