I read it--leans heavily on "sources" at the AZ Republic, which is working overtime to cast doubt and dissension about the audit. Might as well listen to Psaki. Bennett got in the news before by supposedly saying that there was a great discrepancy between the official tally and what they were seeing. He was the original one saying ballot boxes were short, afaik. Then Fann made a mysterious remark.There is disinfo all around, I think.
The article said that he told the media that their audit results "very closely" matched the certified results so far, which goes against what everyone else that's involved with the audits has been saying.
oh ok, I guess my mind was thinking ballot count on the "very closely" part........and it was kinda confusing because of all the other prelim stuff that came out had such bigger numbers.
Obviously considering the original source AZ central, they been spinning lies and BS from the get go so who knows how much of the story is true.
Yeah the only thing that's confirmed is that Bennett was replaced by Randy Pullen, which could be for any number of reasons. Him saying the data matched "very closely" could very well be fake news
There's something familiar about that. It seems like something like that was said early on, after a cursory survey of the first boxes. That was back in May and a lot has changed. Anyway, this is how they create an impression, and I think everyone is throwing out chaff while something is brewing.
I posted this earlier - very odd. I checked Fann's twitter.
She responded to a tweet that asked "If Bennett locked out, sort of undermines the contention that all this is being conducted under the ultimate control and supervision of the Senate"
Her response: "Still under Senate control. Randy Pullen is helping Ken in his absence"
Will the overall total ballot count match what was originally reported by the AZ SoS and the county BofE's? Most likely. And that's the rub. It'll match almost exactly with the previous counts done, but, as with all data sets, the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak.
The true analysis will most likely show, once every ballot is sorted into it's correct pile, that there is a high amount of discrepancy between the true, LEGAL votes and the illegal and fraudulent CCP non-water marked fakes, the duplicate votes, the votes by any unregistered "voters," and votes from the deceased.
This article seems to be an attempt by another MSM leaning news agency to discredit and "debunk" whatever the audit eventually uncovers. [they] can and will most likely point to this article and others like it later on in the discredit/debunk attempts. Just like they have with the other MSM outlets saying the SoS, Dems/RINOs, et al. are correct and the original counts are accurate.
Even without waiting the obligatory 48 hrs, one should be able to see this part of [their] plans. It's a tried and true method of how [they] muddy the waters of public perception in order to paint the "official" narrative on any given subject.
Wait 48 hours.
hasnt it been 48 hours?
I read it--leans heavily on "sources" at the AZ Republic, which is working overtime to cast doubt and dissension about the audit. Might as well listen to Psaki. Bennett got in the news before by supposedly saying that there was a great discrepancy between the official tally and what they were seeing. He was the original one saying ballot boxes were short, afaik. Then Fann made a mysterious remark.There is disinfo all around, I think.
Yeah I guess it's only been 24 hours, I need to be patient
He leaked data when they had not finished counting yet? Weird. It is an incomplete data set, so one could say anything.
Where are you getting or thinking that the data was or maybe was fake...
The article said that he told the media that their audit results "very closely" matched the certified results so far, which goes against what everyone else that's involved with the audits has been saying.
oh ok, I guess my mind was thinking ballot count on the "very closely" part........and it was kinda confusing because of all the other prelim stuff that came out had such bigger numbers.
Obviously considering the original source AZ central, they been spinning lies and BS from the get go so who knows how much of the story is true.
Yeah the only thing that's confirmed is that Bennett was replaced by Randy Pullen, which could be for any number of reasons. Him saying the data matched "very closely" could very well be fake news
There's something familiar about that. It seems like something like that was said early on, after a cursory survey of the first boxes. That was back in May and a lot has changed. Anyway, this is how they create an impression, and I think everyone is throwing out chaff while something is brewing.
I posted this earlier - very odd. I checked Fann's twitter.
She responded to a tweet that asked "If Bennett locked out, sort of undermines the contention that all this is being conducted under the ultimate control and supervision of the Senate"
Her response: "Still under Senate control. Randy Pullen is helping Ken in his absence"
??
Smells like shenanigans.
Will the overall total ballot count match what was originally reported by the AZ SoS and the county BofE's? Most likely. And that's the rub. It'll match almost exactly with the previous counts done, but, as with all data sets, the "proof is in the pudding," so to speak.
The true analysis will most likely show, once every ballot is sorted into it's correct pile, that there is a high amount of discrepancy between the true, LEGAL votes and the illegal and fraudulent CCP non-water marked fakes, the duplicate votes, the votes by any unregistered "voters," and votes from the deceased.
This article seems to be an attempt by another MSM leaning news agency to discredit and "debunk" whatever the audit eventually uncovers. [they] can and will most likely point to this article and others like it later on in the discredit/debunk attempts. Just like they have with the other MSM outlets saying the SoS, Dems/RINOs, et al. are correct and the original counts are accurate.
Even without waiting the obligatory 48 hrs, one should be able to see this part of [their] plans. It's a tried and true method of how [they] muddy the waters of public perception in order to paint the "official" narrative on any given subject.