Comments by "Jim" (@jimohara) on "CNN Confronts Woman Behind Bogus Arizona Audit" video.

  1. No wrong David. I would like if it was said that X won an election it could be proved that X won the election. What are you talking about that suddenly the burden of proof should be that X didn’t win the election? What is wrong with saying have the audits like are legally allowed to happen and as a result of those audits the original determination of who won the election will be proved to be found right in the first place? Why can David not declare that once the audits take place they will confirm the original results of the election? What is the point of having an audit process in place otherwise? Just what exactly is he saying hear? That the original count is 100% right and that a recount must be 100% wrong? How about saying that the original count is 100% right and that the recount will be 100% right too? Why is he not saying that? Why is he saying the original count was perfect but an examination of that count as is automatically wrong? If there’s something wrong with the recount it can be proved after it happens. Proved! That should be easily proved! Why is David trying to make out the recount must be wrong BEFORE it’s even got its results in? Ffs there might not be anything to be found!
    1