Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Disecting a NH "Voter Fraud" Video

Found this video on the "assault" site:

And I wrote the following comment:

I disagree. And the video, while interesting only deals with the hand counted ballots which I understand went in favor of Obama. The question that wasn't asked was whether ballots have ever been moved "from the vault" in any other election.

The "piece of paper" question is not as significant as it seems because if anyone is familiar with a crime scene one will know that such things are done regularly and accepted as "sealed" evidence.

When the videographer returns on Jan 323 they state they went with "Butch and Hoppy" They went into a building that was open, but they did not say when the building was opened and by whom. Shall I assume they didn't ask or is it they didn't think it was an important thing to put to tape.

Then the only act of verified ballot tampering was by these individuals who were let into the building by authorized agents.

Nor did the individuals discuss or state whether the "seal" on the room door was broken or appeared tampered with. Nor did the videographers determine whether anyone had entered the locked building between the time they left and the 23. Why not? It's important.

Lastly you will note that the seals on the boxes were very "tight" and sealed from end to end and has the signature of one "p histon".

The tape that these videographers used, once pulled off was not sealed end to end, nor did it have the signature of the authorized signator. Tell you what.. you try to sign my signature and I bet you anyone who knows it will know it's fake.

This video is proof of absolutely nothing and would be DEMOLISHED in court. The reasonable doubt factor is HUGE.

I want to extend this comment because this is important because reckless charges of voter fraud will become a problem when actual voter fraud happens. If the videographers of the above video wanted to prove that the ballots were tampered with, why didn't they stay at the building all night? Why not have friends sit outside of every entrance to the building? Wouldn't that at least prove once and for all whether someone entered the building after hours and tampered with the boxes?

Ars Technica has an interesting analysis of the controversy which has this to say:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%

Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%

Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

These numbers flew across the Internet, and for those who suspected election fraud, the table above was a smoking gun. Except that it wasn't a smoking gun—it was more like a temporary shape in the clouds that, for a brief moment, looked exactly like a smoking gun.

When I first saw those numbers my initial reaction was that they were fishy; and not fishy in the "Clinton really did steal the election" sense, but in the "something's wrong with the source data here" sense. I wracked my brain for possible fraud-related explanations, but ultimately I just couldn't conceive of an election theft situation that would result in a symmetry like this. I mean, no fraudster would deliberately do something as bizarre as reverse the hand-count and machine-count percentages like that. It made no sense.

After grabbing a copy of O'Dell's spreadsheet and hitting the NH Secretary of State's web site to compare and crunch the numbers myself, I soon discovered that there were two major problems with O'Dell's vote totals and with the remarkable symmetrical percentages that they produced. (Note that I was not alone in these conclusions; there were a few people in one of the forum threads I was monitoring who were asking the same questions.)

First, I spotted a number of districts that the spreadsheet incorrectly listed as "hand-count" districts, but that the NH Secretary of State's web site listed as machine-count districts. As it turns out, fourteen districts were incorrectly identified as hand-counted in O'Dell's source. So moving those fourteen counties from the "hand count" into the "machine count" column made the symmetry disappear. It also made the discrepancy between the hand count and machine count even wider, but more on that later.

The second thing wrong with the table above is that the numbers on which it was based were preliminary, and were still being updated on the Secretary of State web site. The updated vote tallies, which I accessed and compared to O'Dell's spreadsheet, also destroyed the symmetry of the percentages.

But lets go even further than this, Lets assume that the mirror image results were the final results. According to the video above, not only would someone have had to gain entrance to the building without being recorded on the scanner. They would have to have a key to the room, break the seal and replace with an identical seal with the proper signature AND position it exactly like the other one in order to cover any adhesive residue, they would also have to have carried in an exactly correct number of ballots for Obama AND Clinton AND put those in enough boxes to make it look random and do it in enough time to not get caught. You'll note that the original seal shown on the "test box" in the video is clearly intact and unbroken.

So in essence the charge is that the secretary of state or whomever it was that is responsible for the ballots, gave someone access, had the log of entry and any video erased. He also gave this hypothetical person new seals with the proper signatures AND the exact numbers of ballots to add to the various boxes (and if stuffing the ballot resulted in an over count, then the person knew how many to remove from which ever counties. Got that?

I'll wait for someone to post on how and when that happened but I'm not holding my breath.

Technorati Tags:

No comments: