Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravydoo II
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
After the deadline to request a mail-in ballot, which was October 23 in 2020, the requested-ballot list doesn't get updated by the county. But the submitted-ballots list does get updated after that October 23 deadline -- with the votes of in-person early voters.
Archer analyzed the files and found that there were 74,241 ballots on the submitted-ballots list without a corresponding entry on the requested-ballots list -- nearly identical to the figure Logan cited, "74,243." But Archer found that more than 99.9% of the ballots in question were recorded in the submitted-ballots list on October 26 or later.
That is in line with the October 23 cut-off date Archer had previously noted for the requested-ballots list.
The explanation: October 24 and 25 were weekend days when county clerks didn't update the submitted-ballot list, Archer said, so they added the ballots cast by in-person voters on those weekend days to the submitted-ballot totals starting on October 26.
"This is a glaring omission in the analysis," Archer tweeted of the auditors. "It is either grossly negligent for failing to see a pattern of ballots being returned after a certain date or the statements were deliberately misleading."
took 5 seconds... but im not retarded.
So what was it about the ballots that concerned you, exactly??? Fucking retard... oh my god..
please, some kind of, gestapo come remove this trash from the earth. They have a learning machine before them but use it like derek zoolander.. your parents are ashamed of you, for sure.
|
A lot of insults, but that's actually not the claim being made by the auditors
Looks like Archer is pulling some bait and switch on gullible people. He's responding to a claim that wasn't even made. I read through a lot of the supposed fact checks of this assertion and they are all carefully worded with this narrative.
The issue isn't request or submission
The issue is a record of the ballots ever being sent in the first place. Maricopa officials have yet to provide that data. It probably exists and I'm sure they have a record of it somewhere
Even in the hearing they said it could be a clerical error, but such a discrepancy requires the next step which is canvassing which makes sense.