Navarro's blistering 36-page report alleging Biden's outright voter fraud

[pjmret]

Sure. The ballots were opened and the envelopes with the verification signatures were shredded. I get the point.

yes, AFTER they were validated.
i'm not sure you get the point.

 

[mark francis]

so far no one has proven it, but you keep claiming it happened, even though all the states, doj, dhs, and courts disagree with you. lol.

it makes you look like a moron.

and elected officials have determined the election was legitimate. you need to pay attention

The officials who side with democrats claim the election was legitimate. Other officials believe there was widespread fraud.

 

[mark francis]

and yet no court has ruled in favor of trump in that regard. Not sure why you think the fbi had to have an exact list of documents. courts apparently don't think that

Courts could not declare that no fraud occurred because they did not have any evidence that proved that.

 

[pjmret]

The officials who side with democrats claim the election was legitimate. Other officials believe there was widespread fraud.

the officials in charge said it was legitimate. they weren't "siding with democrats", they were carrying out their job and stating their beliefs based upon their knowledge. duh.

which "officials" believe there was "widespread fraud" and what evidence did they present?

 

[mark francis]

yes, officials explained exactly what happened, and no one has provided any credible evidence otherwise.

officials validated the ballots as received. its already been done. try to pay attention.

Officials who validated the ballots without signature verifications or voting machine records could not have validated the ballots according to any irrefutable standard of validation.

 

[pjmret]

Courts could not declare that no fraud occurred because they did not have any evidence that proved that.

god we've been over this. lol.
you're so stupid.

courts don't declare that "no massive fraud" occurred. that was the job of DHS and the DOJ, and that's what they declared. duh.

courts rule on evidence presented, and the evidence was not credible that there was fraud.

 

[pjmret]

Officials who validated the ballots without signature verifications or voting machine records could not have validated the ballots according to any irrefutable standard of validation.

how do you know they validated it without signature verifications?

 

[mark francis]

yes, AFTER they were validated.
i'm not sure you get the point.

I believe the change in the law eliminated the need to use signature verifications at all.

Analysis: A Lack of Signature Verification in Georgia Damages Recount Validity - Tennessee Star

Georgia is undertaking a hand recount of ballots cast in the 2020 election in an effort to ensure ballot integrity, but with absentee mail-in ballots already separated from their envelopes, it may be impossible to pull back any votes even if they were cast by ineligible voters.

tennesseestar.com

On the administrative and judicial amendment to the signature matching requirement, the danger of removing the voter registration card from the mix is that it becomes possible for individuals to both request and submit absentee mail-in ballots on behalf of somebody else — potentially without their knowledge.

 

[mark francis]

the officials in charge said it was legitimate. they weren't "siding with democrats", they were carrying out their job and stating their beliefs based upon their knowledge. duh.

which "officials" believe there was "widespread fraud" and what evidence did they present?

Officials who claimed without proof that all ballots were legitimate are not supported by officials who claim that removing election securities makes verifying all ballots as legitimate impossible.

 

[pjmret]

Officials who claimed without proof that all ballots were legitimate are not supported by officials who claim that removing election securities makes verifying all ballots as legitimate impossible.

you think anyone is claiming that literally 100% of ballots out of 5 million are legitimate?
everyone recognizes that some (small) number of errors will occur out of MILLIONS of ballots.

name them and quote them.

 

[mark francis]

god we've been over this. lol.
you're so stupid.

courts don't declare that "no massive fraud" occurred. that was the job of DHS and the DOJ, and that's what they declared. duh.

courts rule on evidence presented, and the evidence was not credible that there was fraud.

Courts could possibly have ruled on the fraud allegations if they had been given all available evidence or had requested in-depth investigations into the allegations before ruling against examining the allegations in court for lacking evidence.

 

[pjmret]

I believe the change in the law eliminated the need to use signature verifications at all.

Analysis: A Lack of Signature Verification in Georgia Damages Recount Validity - Tennessee Star

Georgia is undertaking a hand recount of ballots cast in the 2020 election in an effort to ensure ballot integrity, but with absentee mail-in ballots already separated from their envelopes, it may be impossible to pull back any votes even if they were cast by ineligible voters.

tennesseestar.com

On the administrative and judicial amendment to the signature matching requirement, the danger of removing the voter registration card from the mix is that it becomes possible for individuals to both request and submit absentee mail-in ballots on behalf of somebody else — potentially without their knowledge.

no, that says for the RECOUNT you can't verify signatures anymore. Not the ORIGINAL validation. duh

 

[mark francis]

how do you know they validated it without signature verifications?

The law originally required the envelopes with the signatures to be preserved in case questions arose about the validity of the ballots. The democrat-motivated change in the law eliminated that requirement, thus destroying any hope of using signatures to validate the ballots in a recount.

 

[pjmret]

Courts could possibly have ruled on the fraud allegations if they had been given all available evidence or had requested in-depth investigations into the allegations before ruling against examining the allegations in court for lacking evidence.

they were given all the evidence that the plaintiffs wanted to give them. There is no reason plaintiffs would have held back credible evidence.

courts don't order investigations. they rule on the evidence.

agencies like DOJ would do investigations, but they found no evidence suggesting a need for it.

 

[pjmret]

The law originally required the envelopes with the signatures to be preserved in case questions arose about the validity of the ballots. The democrat-motivated change in the law eliminated that requirement, thus destroying any hope of using signatures to validate the ballots in a recount.

"democrat motivated"? in a red state, you mean "republican approved" lol
your obsession with blaming democrats in a red state is most amusing. And stupid.

but the signatures were validated originally.