scanning isn’t tabulating... according to the investigations into the matter.
Page 6
(Note that the machines log all the activity on the machine.)
According to the people who have a vested interest in claiming they didn't screw up the election.
In law there is this principle called "statement against interest." People tend to regard something as more believable if it is a statement against the interest of people telling it.
Telling us something that is beneficial to the person telling it? Not so much.
(Note that the machines log all the activity on the machine.)
Can we put the machine on the stand and make it swear an oath?
So long as the machines are under the control of people intent on covering up election fraud, the machines will say whatever their owners want them to say.
I have absolutely no trust in Brad Raffensperger or his people. We can see he's a lying sack of sh*t for what he tried to do to Trump over a phone call, and I hope lighting strikes him.
Now that we know he's an absolute liar, why should we trust *ANYTHING* he or his people say?
This is another principle in law. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
If you lie about one thing, you cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.