Changes

====GA counterfeit ballots====

====GA 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”:

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.}}

{{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:

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.

{{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.