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.
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.