Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Breitbart News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They had 70,000 (or 60,000) uncounted neatly stacked ballots in boxes that were not YET counted. In PA on Thursday = approx. 48 - 60 hours after they could start counting an unusually high number of mail ballots. I think the state had the rule to accept mail ballots until 2 or 3 days after election day (maybe with the postal stamp being Nov 3rd). So they had to count millions ! of ballots manually, are not really equipped to handle that many paper ballots (unlike other nations who do not use machines at at all) and locked away the still uncounted ballots securely - and restricted who and when would be allowed to even go into the room.
They better do that !
Did they have cameras that were on all the time that registered WHO got into the room. He does not mention it. I am almost sure there were cameras.
he could not follow the chain - or so he says. he claims they violated all the rules.
But he never gives any specifics.
What is the process of delivery of the mail votes supposed to be, how is the logistics handled - and at what point would it have been possible to add some paper ballots - let's say 10,000 or 50,000.
Would that be with fake envelopes that someone diligently forged ? That would be a major operation, and invariably there would be leaks.
Or does he allege they inserted the naked paper ballots.
So ... many poll workers got the ballots out of the envelopes, controlled if they were complete and up to standard (incl. being correctly signed) and marked in the voter data base (or on lists)that this person had cast their vote. And they COUNTED them ballots and envelopes). And signed off on that count. They cann add up the numbers of different poll workers or teams.
In the end you have a number for 1) mail ballots that we opened 2) xx were correct and 3) xx were incomplete and we had to put them aside. And we have the SAME number of envelopes - because we (a group of poll workers) unpacked them. Over many many hours.
You bet, some of these pollworkers are staunch Republicans, if they are smart they get themselves hired as poll workers or volunteers - to be in the middle of it all.
And yes the envelopes and the ballots are separated after that- so the vote will be anonymous. That is not nefarious, that is how it works. They cannot put back the envelopes and the ballots together IF they do a recount. That would be an administrative nightmare AND it would violate the privacy. Big time.
They have to get the ballot out of the outer envelopes, they have to check if the signature is on the envelope, they do so before witnesses and many poll workers (D or R who knows) do that work, and sign off eventually on that work. Does he insinuate all or most of them are cheating ?? That is ludicrous.
If he talks about swing states (only there cheating would make even sense) - most of them have a Republican govenor OR legislature. they can control how they set up the processes and of course they can install processes of 4 eyes or more and many other safety steps. So it should be hard to cheat and if so it should be in numbers that are not relevant.
and then they can count the envelopes and the ballots and the numbers should match. (I'll cut them some slack if the hand count differs by a few, and machines are not ifallible either. But the general number of envelopes and ballots must match.
I am not clear if he means that the envelopes were destoyed after that (they should - because it would be such a pain in the butt having to forge the envelopes and you could see that the same person has written the addresses again and again - that would be evidence. if the envelopes are kept such fraud could be easily exposed. - They for sure keep the ballots for a potential recount.
And there will be a process / logistics how the naked ballots are handled from then on. he did not give any specifics what he did not like about that process. he did not give any specifics how they were handled as opposed to what he thinks should be done. Most likely the processes were just fine and he is running his mouth.
1
-
you do not have forensic "data" here - you have a PROCESS, a chain of events. - He just throws out the big words and the Trump cultists pick them up and parade them around. Another THOUGHT STOPPING cliché. At what step does he think the process was compromised and would have allowed (at least in theory) to change the number of ballots (adding removing) or the results of in person voting (that was processed at the machines) ?
to my knowledge the voters had to demand a mail ballot, got it (if they were already registered). The outer (or the inner) envelope has the addess of the voter and the inner envelope that contains the ballot must have the signature and must be closed (in some states they also demand the signature of witnesses).
It would be a lot of work to fake that writing and 10,000 or 20,000 DIFFERENT signatures. How do you pull that off ? you would need a lot of people and the handwriting would be only that of the limited number of persons working on the plot.
Then the voters brought that outer envelope (with the signed innner envelop containing the ballot) to the post. or to collection boxes. What does he object to ?
Even IF you could fake ballots (that would mean get correct looking PRINTED forms which adds another layer of protection) and also add an existing address of a person that is actually registered. But if that person also votes (in person or by mail) they would notice, the person would be already listed as "has already voted" or "got a mail ballot". So the poll workers and the state would KNOW there are WIDESPREAD attempts to cheat.
There are not even reports of a few such attempts.
The ballot would have to be a copy or a print. with the correct design, after the state settled for one. Copies are recognizable - and print is almost impossible. Because no company that still has a printing machine IN the country would be crazy enough to print fake ballots. There is not much time (I think they kicked off the Green party in some states and that delayed the printing of the ballots). If you want to forge the forms you have to wait until you get the exact design of this years ballot. Which btw means you have to get it somehow and you would need to have insider contacts that give you the design. Then you have only short time to get it printed (this year and in some states maybe 2 - 3 weeks). Want to get it printed at some shady place in another country ? How do you import them, and how do you make sure the workers that handle the hot goods do not leak the info (if they inform a major newspaper, they could get good money for such a scoop). I do not think the few remaining printers in any first world country would do it. Importing your forged ballots from a developing country ?? The workers could get a years worth salary for informing a media outlet. They do have smartphones even in developing countries now, or at least phones with a camera. Not hard to document it.
If someone checks the ballots they would notice that they are copies and not printed forms (and is almost impossible to come up with a genuine looking printed form). I think even poll workers would notice as they count them. The paper quality would be different. Print is higher quality (resolution) than copies a copy machines makes little ink spots, etc. And of course there must be some diligent bees that make the crosses and write on the address, sign them, seal the envelope ... The forms are (might be) also larger than the usualy format handled by copy machines, so you would have a special copy machine for that. That means commercial purposes and that means the person would think even harder whether to do that than a normal citizen.
I also think that the deposit stations had security cameras (if they had any in Delaware county). So a person could not just come up with a LOT of forged ballots and dump them in. You have to carry them and to insert them piece by piece. That would be on camera.
Then the boxes are collected. I assume there are locked and are opened in the presence of witnesses - several people. They should have a list how many deposit boxes they had and someone signing off when they were delivered. to make sure they do not forget one.
or the post handles the ballots. Does he insinuate that post workers could add forged ballots (many of the forgeries would invariably become evident if the legitimate vote is cast, even if they do not know who submitted the forged ballot or where they got into the system). Does he insiniuate post workers could remove ballots ? (They would not know for whom the sender voted, unless they know the Zip codes really well, then they could make an educated guess. I assume post has protocols in place that no letters and parcels disappear and they may have extra protocols for mail ballots).
Then the post delivers the ballots and someone (several persons ! 4 eyes principle) receives them, likely signs off on them and has the duty to store them. What does he not like here. what specifically (= what process) does he think is not safe and would allow manipulation.
These grifters / sore losers / merchants of doubt just run their mouth.
1
-
The counting center is at a remote place (how is that relevant) ? 20 GOP poll observers were there - he says he was told that. He never said that was not true or that he verified that with his own party. That should be easy. I am almost certain that the GOP was well represented there ALL the time. They have the legal right and not being there would be grounds for a lawsuit - and the judge would not throw out THAT case and FOX would bother to report on it.
He only said that HE and his peers were not allowed in the counting center until late evening (maybe poll observers that had applied for being allowed there and followed the usual procedures and got their ticket - went home earlier and made room for them. So that they would shut up).
I assume they have quotas for how many observers they allow. Can't be otherwise. What if a group of 200 shows up and demands to be allowed in the holy halls. Maybe they also do a security check on the persons (or the party has to vouch for them, we wouldn't want to have mentally ill, or delusional persons being present and disturbing the process or acting out - or getting agitated and violent.
it is highly likely that the GOP did indeed have approx 20 observers present all the time (and the same number for the Democrats). Another issue. - The party will make sure that at least a part of the admission tickets * go to persons that are really solid Republicans (or Democrats). Imagine Democratic loyalists would pose as Republican voters, so they would be the only ones showing up to exert oversight. Over the COUNTING of the votes.
* not sure if they have them, they sometime do that when there is a lot of interest in a public court case.
Nope, if the party has a quota of 20 persons they likely have their reliable folks affiliated with the party org, and maybe they also allow a few random Republican voters. I would expect them to have a schedule for shifts or organize stand-ins if a person gets sick after they planned their shifts. There may be some slots for normal citizens - but the parties will make damn sure that they KNOW at least a part of the observers very well and can vet them. the normal citizens may or may not show up on time but there will be some party loyalists on duty. All the time and in sufficient numbers.
Which may explain why there was no space for his little group. The GOP was well represented, just not by him.
So he wanted in and he finally got in (and says he needed legal help for that). I think it may not have been the legal help that got them in at 11 pm. but that a few poll observers got tired, were told that a few Republicans made a stink, and they were willing to go home and make room for those that DEMANDED to be allowed in. Even if they had not bothered to apply earlier AND were not sent by the party.
What is the scandal or even the facts about that ?
If you hear it the first time (in passing) it sounds like he insinuates that there were NO or not enough GOP observers all the time.
That HE is not there, does not mean the Republicans were not allowed in sufficient numbers. IF they had been denied the Republican party would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Or more like: it would have been an uproar, FOX would show up with the camera teams nearby and do breaking news, and they would have tried to get an emergency court decision. That did not happen. Methinks that he was just pisssed that THEY did not let HIM in.
or he just wants to create doubt (Merchants of doubt style) and carefully constructs his deceptive narrative.
"THEY" also includes the Republican party. he could have coordinated with them earlier. But maybe it is considered a honor to be chosen to represent the party on that occasion, and they reserve those spots for loyalists. and he did not make it - so he got himself in by creating a stir.
1
-
1:22 those provisional ballots are either not many - or IF they hand them out so often WHY are the voter rolls kept in such a bad state ?? How many cases of (very likely legitimate) voters being allowed to vote even though they were not on the lists did he observe (10, 20, 100 ???) - although he thinks they should be denied their right to vote, and most likely it is not their fault that they are not on the list.
either those incidents happent to the base of both parties (then it does not change the outcome). OR: it so "happens" that people liklely to vote for a D candaidate are more often missing from the voters rolls - then that is a bad sign that they are targeted for purges. (voted always in the same place, did not move, and wasn't on the voter roll after decades of voting in the same place. And these are people that go on record with a name).
When Stacy Abrams wanted to vote for herself in 2018 in Georgia (with the camerteams of newstations in tow), the poll worker told her that she had gotten a mail ballot so she could not vote in person. The poll worker was nice - and nervous. Stacy Abrams insisted on seeing the boss. She said: I have never voted by mail, and certainly did not order a mail ballot, I wanted to vote in person). Interestingly her opponent, Kemp also had some troubles when he went to cast his vote.
Abrams insisted and she was allowed to vote in person, but she thinks the camerteams helped her case - she could vote. In her usual place. No doubt Kemp was also allowed to vote.
The GOP specializes in purges that are formally legal (they do not announce that they target certain democgraphics and Zip codes), but somehow end up hitting the D base much more.
And Dems did a massive voter roll purge to help a neoliberal candidate win a primary in New Mexico a few years ago (according to Greg Palast. He said the worst he has seen so far, even worse than Republicans). And in New York in 2016 in Brooklyn the voter rolls were purged "by mistake". Team Clinton did not want to risk to lose therer and targetted an area where Sanders was set up to do very well.
Both parties do it.
But according to him the poll workers should have been given a provisional ballot - so in reality DENY the right to vote. A provisional ballot is almost never counted) -
It is unimaginable in other first world countries that a sizeable portion of voters would be told: oops can't find you on the rolls, you can't vote. And who in their right mind would show up to demand a ballot if they are not doing it legally ?
That carries 5 years in prison as sentence. ONE vote does not change the outcome, but comes with a great personal risk, never mind that most people would not do it for ethical reasons.
In other nations it is IMPOSSIBLE for citizens to vote double or vote in a place where they are not registered. But it is very easy to update your residency and they deduct the voter rolls from that data base (that is also used for all other purpuses). Only if you moved in the last week you may have bad luck. You either have to wait with switching your place of residency and still vote in the old place or not vote this time. They do paper ballots and hand count. So they start printing the voter rolls 1 week earlier and cannot updated for that short time.
it is on principle not possible to cheat - and no party can pull the cheap stunt and deny that. they. lost.
And politicians cannot throw voters off the voter rolls. it is not hard to have a functioning streamlined system. the U.S. system is intentionally set up that way and Republicans want that bureaucraZy even more than Democrats. because they can sneak in voter purges that way.
A voter purge would not even make sense in other first world country. The central register of residency is used for a lot or purposes, it is very important, and of course it is also updated when a child is born, or a person dies or moves. (people are supposed to give notice when they move and also to update the vehicle registration. . if they fail to do so they have to vote at their old place. People that have kids, houses, or cars are usually up to date. And often landlords ask for proof that you changed your residency information. Or you need it to get certain perks in your city, like a cheap pass for public transportation for the locals, or the right to free and longer parking where you live. But occasionally students that live in another city will get the call from the parents. We got your election letter (every voters gets it for every election to the address in the residency data base), will you come home for the weekend to vote ? Needless to say: elections are on sundays or holidays, and if you have to wait more than 10 minutes it would be extraordinary.
Parents that have a new baby of course enter the child into the system - likely they get help in the hospital to do so. They get the SS number, the universal healthcare, the universal child benefits, and a few years later the affordable low cost childcare (run by their town or city) and the free public school place. . And aprrox 18 years later (whenever the next election is when the young adult will be of voting age for the first time) that kid will get a letter inviting them to participate in the election and time and location.
Repubs do not want minorities and lower income people to vote (or that they have it easy to vote or to register) in the general. They are fast and reckless to throw people off the role and make it a hassle to get back on the rolls. Georgia has made that an artform they could teach Floridan voter suppressers a lesson.
And Democrats do not want those groups to vote in primaries.
in both cases it serves the interests of the big-donor friendly candidates. Which finance BOTH parties.
1
-
1
-
Delaware county has 425,000 registered voters and 300,000 of them voted (that would be a plausible turnout 70 % - the national average is 68 % of the eligible voters turned out. Now that would indicate that voter registration status is high - it could be if the Dems did their job). and he says for 120,000 of those votes you cannot verify the validity. What does that even mean ? That someone switched the votes ?? That people that were not registered somehow were able to enter their votes. And the mail balltos of legitimate voters were removed. WHAT does he mean by that ?
PA (I assume Delaware county is in PA) was lost last time by a tiny margin, you bet the Dems there did the groundwork to not let that happen again. And the base WAS motivated this time. If HRC had not done her premature victory laps, and would have instead begged PA to turn out - she might have pulled it off in 2016. Trump won 3 Rustbelt states with only a total of 70,000 more votes and if HRC had won PA SHE would have prevailed.
That would mean only 40 % of the registered voters (180,000 out of 425,000) cast votes that he and crazy Giuliani consider to be "legitimate" and "verifiable". I am sure he thinks that the mail votes are not valid / cannot be verified.
Why can't they be verified ??
Since the Republicans poopood on vote by mail preemtiveley (they know it helps with voter participation and that is never good for Republican candidates) - we can assume that the 120,000 votes he dismisses in such a cavalier manner contain much more votes for Democrats (Biden and down ticket).
if Republican voters used that because it is convenient, safes time and is safe (CoVid-19) they would also gladly dismiss those votes as legitimate.
1
-
1