They are saying the "shrink to fit" was to fix the issue, but it wasn't to fix some random "a printer issue", it was to fix the election and was an illegal action performed at 138 election centers.
The point was to steal the election. The 'how" is the question because if it's a multi-step effort, it was clearly done on purpose. As was previously stated, this wasn't someone bumping into a machine, this was a deliberate act. The harder it is to reprogram the ballots to print like this, the more obvious the fraud. IMO
The reason I said the next question is why, is that it is the logical question, after it is found that a mysterious setting changed the ballots.
What is a reasonable explanation for changing the format? Clearly it mucked up a whole lot of ballots, and disproportionately so.
Once it can be proved that it was done intentionally, a funny reason is going to pop, like so-and-so told me to do it, or the machine did it, by itself. Which will dig the hole deeper as far as the judge will be concerned.
The tabulators, printers and ballots were tested the night before election and worked perfectly, per the poll workers' own admission on election day. This had to be an intentional action on somebody's part.
Basically they're saying ALL of those printers magically reduced their size by exactly 10% and it wasn't intentional.
They are saying the "shrink to fit" was to fix the issue, but it wasn't to fix some random "a printer issue", it was to fix the election and was an illegal action performed at 138 election centers.
The point is: Why?
The point was to steal the election. The 'how" is the question because if it's a multi-step effort, it was clearly done on purpose. As was previously stated, this wasn't someone bumping into a machine, this was a deliberate act. The harder it is to reprogram the ballots to print like this, the more obvious the fraud. IMO
Yes, I understand that.
The reason I said the next question is why, is that it is the logical question, after it is found that a mysterious setting changed the ballots.
What is a reasonable explanation for changing the format? Clearly it mucked up a whole lot of ballots, and disproportionately so.
Once it can be proved that it was done intentionally, a funny reason is going to pop, like so-and-so told me to do it, or the machine did it, by itself. Which will dig the hole deeper as far as the judge will be concerned.
WE know that it was done fraudulently.
The tabulators, printers and ballots were tested the night before election and worked perfectly, per the poll workers' own admission on election day. This had to be an intentional action on somebody's part.
More like shrink to not fit in this case.
If Runbeck was printing ballots using offset printing, why would anyone be adjusting the size, when size is determined by the printing plate?
Yeah, lies