My question is are these people now released to discuss their findings? I thought that was the case once the findings were made public. Maybe not if their input has criminal ramifications?
They also stated that all findings that identified an individual- a voter or a perp- would remain redacted / obscured and only given directly to the Senate and Brnovich. (From Dr. Shiva's presentation)
One of the 9/24 presenters mentioned in his presentation that there wasn't any official standardized paper used for printing ballots in the 2020 election (he said there were like 10 kinds of paper used). So maybe Jovan's paper analysis info would be discredited to some degree based on the many types of legitimate paper used on ballots.
I realize that "computer generated" filling in ballot ovals vs. pressure on paper from a human filling in ballot ovals is totally valid analysis, but maybe it would be watered down "evidence" since there's 10 kinds of ballot paper in the mix to kinda muck things up. Just my $.02 on why Jovan may have been left out of this presentation.
The giant gaping hole in the evidence that I WANTED to see and hear screamed from the rooftops was all the stolen / flipped / injected votes via hacks - provable with IP addresses, country of origin, and time/date stamped with # of votes removed / injected / flipped - from the data packets. That wasn't part of the presentation at all today. :-(
I thought that was Doug Logan, in reference to the (mostly) military absentee ballots. IIRC there were only like 850 or so in that class of ballot, each of the other classes were uniform.
I was referring to the mention of there being no uniform specific standardized ballot paper used in the AZ election - that was stated during one of the 9/24 presentations (sorry I don't remember which speaker it was who said that).
Im guessing they have CCTV footage of that to.go through before packaging and sending.to the State AG.
Big question is. When willl the people who need to vote to decertify get ahold.of it.
Redacted from public presentation today.
Unredacted report (full) was forwarded to the AZ A.G.
Implied is, if information could be used as the basis for criminal charges, you don't publish publicly before proper authority adjudicates.
Based on remarks during the hearing by Senate President Karen Lann
Ok, that make sense.
You mean Karen Fann.... right?
Corrected, thanks.
No worries fren :) just wanted to make sure I was following correctly and there wasn't some other person I wasn't aware of =D
Jovan said he submitted a 197 page report. Pretty interesting it is redacted. Here’s a link where he talks about it.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/boom-scale-1-10-say-12-jovan-pulitzer-seriousness-audit-results-197-pages-arizona-audit-report/?
My question is are these people now released to discuss their findings? I thought that was the case once the findings were made public. Maybe not if their input has criminal ramifications?
They also stated that all findings that identified an individual- a voter or a perp- would remain redacted / obscured and only given directly to the Senate and Brnovich. (From Dr. Shiva's presentation)
One of the 9/24 presenters mentioned in his presentation that there wasn't any official standardized paper used for printing ballots in the 2020 election (he said there were like 10 kinds of paper used). So maybe Jovan's paper analysis info would be discredited to some degree based on the many types of legitimate paper used on ballots.
I realize that "computer generated" filling in ballot ovals vs. pressure on paper from a human filling in ballot ovals is totally valid analysis, but maybe it would be watered down "evidence" since there's 10 kinds of ballot paper in the mix to kinda muck things up. Just my $.02 on why Jovan may have been left out of this presentation.
The giant gaping hole in the evidence that I WANTED to see and hear screamed from the rooftops was all the stolen / flipped / injected votes via hacks - provable with IP addresses, country of origin, and time/date stamped with # of votes removed / injected / flipped - from the data packets. That wasn't part of the presentation at all today. :-(
I thought that was Doug Logan, in reference to the (mostly) military absentee ballots. IIRC there were only like 850 or so in that class of ballot, each of the other classes were uniform.
I was referring to the mention of there being no uniform specific standardized ballot paper used in the AZ election - that was stated during one of the 9/24 presentations (sorry I don't remember which speaker it was who said that).
I recall that they mentioned early on, after Dr. Shiva was finished, I believe, that the paper analysis is still wrapping up.
I don't know why it wasn't done, but there's still more 💥 coming, and I would love to see Jovan do the presentation for that.
Im guessing they have CCTV footage of that to.go through before packaging and sending.to the State AG. Big question is. When willl the people who need to vote to decertify get ahold.of it.
Probably another audit! Stay tuned. We don’t fire all our ammo at once.
yeah, let's wait for 2028
Go away doomers
Saving that for another day