Well well well.

[mark francis]

That's odd. You never questioned the machines until

You never mentioned their vulnerability when Trump but accepted their decision unquestioned. Suddenly when he's defeated you blame the machines with suggested tampering favoured Biden with no evidence whatsoever even after the GOP conducted audits. How coincidental.

True. I never said anything about evidence of voting machine corruption until I started reading credible reports of voting machine corruption.

You never mentioned their vulnerability when Trump but accepted their decision unquestioned. Suddenly when he's defeated you blame the machines with suggested tampering favoured Biden with no evidence whatsoever even after the GOP conducted audits. How coincidental.
There was NOT ONE report than proved errors. NOT ONE. You liar.

You may be right. There may not been one voting machine involved in suspicious vote tampering that Democrats have allowed to be investigated to either prove or disprove the evidence of fraud.

Yes and rightly so. If you understood how they work, which you don't, it is a very valid point. But the issue fails when they were tested and found nothing. Can't you get that into your prayer filled fucking head?

According to election officials like Peters, the machines were corrupted after they were tested and even their alleged testing was itself riddled with flaws and errors.

 

[pjmret]

True. I never said anything about evidence of voting machine corruption until I started reading credible reports of voting machine corruption.


You may be right. There may not been one voting machine involved in suspicious vote tampering that Democrats have allowed to be investigated to either prove or disprove the evidence of fraud.

According to election officials like Peters, the machines were corrupted after they were tested and even their alleged testing was itself riddled with flaws and errors.

Peters is not an expert duh
Her opinion is worthless

 

[pjmret]

Any auditors who found nothing wrong with voting machines that another auditor found multiple problems with should resign for incompetency.

So which audit was that *****

 

[pjmret]

You cannot justify obstructions of investigations into machines with evidence of illegal operations or conditions.

Which obstruction was that *****

 

[Boris Norris]

True. I never said anything about evidence of voting machine corruption until I started reading credible reports of voting machine corruption.

But your credible reports were proven by your credible GOP audits to be not tampered with.
Link the sources you read and I'll decide if they are credible because nothing you have posted about this is credible.

You may be right. There may not been one voting machine involved in suspicious vote tampering that Democrats have allowed to be investigated to either prove or disprove the evidence of fraud.

According to election officials like Peters, the machines were corrupted after they were tested and even their alleged testing was itself riddled with flaws and errors.

Bullshit. She was not allowed to test anything because she has no official tight.
They were not corrupted and you fabricated that.

How can your or her know if the procedure was flawed when neither checked them before or after?

Do t you see what a ridiculous statement that is? Your simply projecting you wishes. It's total bullshit and you know it.

 

[mark francis]

Peters is not an expert duh
Her opinion is worthless

She was an election official doing her job. She hired experts to look into evidence of fraud and they found it. She should be commended for doing her job as she was supposed to.

 

[mark francis]

So which audit was that *****

I posted a link to that earlier. You can find it.

 

[mark francis]

Which obstruction was that *****

The Democrat Secretary of State introduced new Democrat voting rules making investigations into voting machines off-limits to non-Democrats. Tina Peters violated that Democrat rule and for that she was arrested and the book was thrown at her with every petty, insignificant, inapplicable charge the jackbooted Democrat fascists could throw at her. Her home was raided by leftist Democrat goons just like Trump's home was raided, which is SOP for bent justice officials.

 

[mark francis]

Bullshit. She was not allowed to test anything because she has no official tight.
They were not corrupted and you fabricated that.

Like I said, Democrats invented new election rules prior to Nov 2020 that made it a violation of Democrat election laws for any non-Democrat-approved investigator to look into voting machines for evidence of possible fraud.

 

[Boris Norris]

Like I said, Democrats invented new election rules prior to Nov 2020 that made it a violation of Democrat election laws for any non-Democrat-approved investigator to look into voting machines for evidence of possible fraud.

No they didn't. The laws were there long before this event and they are not allowed under the constitution to make laws specifically against another party.
You are a liar again.

 

[pjmret]

Like I said, Democrats invented new election rules prior to Nov 2020 that made it a violation of Democrat election laws for any non-Democrat-approved investigator to look into voting machines for evidence of possible fraud.

Quote that rule lying *****
But you won't because you are a lying *****

 

[pjmret]

The Democrat Secretary of State introduced new Democrat voting rules making investigations into voting machines off-limits to non-Democrats. Tina Peters violated that Democrat rule and for that she was arrested and the book was thrown at her with every petty, insignificant, inapplicable charge the jackbooted Democrat fascists could throw at her. Her home was raided by leftist Democrat goons just like Trump's home was raided, which is SOP for bent justice officials.

Quote that rule lying ***** lol

 

[pjmret]

She was an election official doing her job. She hired experts to look into evidence of fraud and they found it. She should be commended for doing her job as she was supposed to.

Her job was to break laws? No
There are procedures if you claim fraud
She took the law into her own hands and was rightfully arrested duh

 

[pjmret]

I posted a link to that earlier. You can find it.

Nah you are a proven liar you name that audit *****
But you wont

 

[mark francis]

No they didn't. The laws were there long before this event and they are not allowed under the constitution to make laws specifically against another party.
You are a liar again.

Your reply lacks persuasive arguments. Election laws in Colorado have not been set in stone since the beginning but are in constant flux, having been modified, changed, amended, altered, or rewritten many times over the years. Many states under Democrat control rewrote their election laws prior to the 2020 election to give advantages to Democrat candidates. That fact is indisputable.

Colorado made changes to its election laws in 2019, under Democrat control with a former Obama elections czar as Secretary of State.
The old and new law has provisions for certifying voting machines but no provisions for investigations of machines after an election in which miraculously high numbers of votes were submitted by the machines for the candidate of the party in control of the machines. The laws make provision for possible fraud in other areas but no provision for investigating whether the SOS in charge of elections colluded with corrupt voting machine providers to alter the election in favor of his or her party candidate.

The 2019 provision vested all power to examine voting machines in the partisan Secretary of State, who wrote rules favoring the Democrat Party candidates and restrictions against investigating possible voting machine fraud.

crs2019-title-01.pdf (colorado.gov)

Snipped quotes:

Elected officials not to handle voting equipment or devices. (1) In any political subdivision having a population of one hundred thousand or more, it is unlawful for any elected official or candidate for elective office to prepare, maintain, or repair any voting equipment or device that is to be used or is used in any election.

Elected officials not to handle voting equipment or devices. (1) In any political subdivision having a population of one hundred thousand or more, it is unlawful for any elected official or candidate for elective office to prepare, maintain, or repair any voting equipment or device that is to be used or is used in any election.