Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,396
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + + + + + + + +
Georgia election fraud (view source)
Revision as of 00:37, November 28, 2020
, 00:37, November 28, 2020→No down ballot voting
President Trump gained 2,432,799 votes, while the GOP Senate candidate tallied 2,433,617 votes. This is a difference of only 818 votes. Joe Biden in contrast gained 2,462,857 votes, while Osoff, a Democratic Senate candidate, tallied 2,373,560 votes. This is a difference of 89,297 votes. However, Hazel, a third party candidate, received 114,986 votes.
President Trump gained 2,432,799 votes, while the GOP Senate candidate tallied 2,433,617 votes. This is a difference of only 818 votes. Joe Biden in contrast gained 2,462,857 votes, while Osoff, a Democratic Senate candidate, tallied 2,373,560 votes. This is a difference of 89,297 votes. However, Hazel, a third party candidate, received 114,986 votes.
====Counterfeit ballots====
A poll worker testified they saw “counterfeit” ballots with darker colored watermarks that went 100% to Joe Biden. When the Elections Director was alerted to the counterfeit ballots they brushed off concerns and said the watermarks were darker because of the use of different printers. The poll worker testified about “the use of different paper for ballots, that would constitute fraud stating”:
{{quotebox-float|I noticed that almost all of the ballots I reviewed were for Biden. Many batches went 100% for Biden. I also observed that the watermark on at least 3 ballots were solid gray instead of transparent, leading me to believe the ballot was counterfeit. I challenged this and the Elections Director said it was a legitimate ballot and was due to the use of different printers. Many ballots had markings for Biden only, and no markings on the rest of the ballot.}}
Another worker (same witness who gave sworn statement in ''Wood v. Raffensperger'') explained she observed batches of pristine ballots with different texture paper with machine-stamped bubbles that went 98% for Joe Biden:
{{quotebox-float|Most of the ballots had already been handled; they had been written on by people, and the edges were worn. They showed obvious use. However, one batch stood out. It was pristine. There was a difference in the texture of the paper – it was if they were intended for absentee use but had not been used for that purposes. There was a difference in the feel.
These different ballots included a slight depressed pre-fold so they could be easily folded and unfolded for use in the scanning machines. There were no markings on the ballots to show where they had com~ from, or where they had been processed. These stood out.
In my 20 years of experience of handling ballots, I observed that the markings for the candidates on these ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with a ballot-marking device. By my estimate in observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for Joe Biden. I only observed two of these ballots as votes for President Donald J. Trump.”<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/georgia-lawsuit-witness-testifies-use-different-paper-counterfeit-ballots-watermark-solid-grey-instead-transparent-100-joe-biden/</ref>}}
===Ineligible voters===
===Ineligible voters===