“What I missed Thursday is where they allege that the shrink to fit option was set.”
One point:
IT DOESN’T MATTER.
2 things the wrong size paper accomplishes:
1.Ballot print jobs sent to the printer will not print due to an error message (e.g., “Load correct size media”).
2. Tabulators will eject the ballots without scanning any votes whatsoever with an error (none of the data - including the barcodes AND the vote selections - are in the right locations) and they end up in the ‘adjudication’ batch (the ‘black bags/boxes’ I’ve read about prior). ‘Adjudication’ is where they change the ballots ONSCREEN (digitally). THIS is why chain of custody is so damned important. It is also why they manipulated the election to stay outside the ‘automatic recount’ total...’just enough’ to win.
I believe that it WAS nefarious, that they (correctly) believed no one would notice the sizing issue and that someone ultimately effed up in MC by not setting things properly so that the ballots would print normally.
Insofar as ‘logs’: It is unlikely that their software would register such a change based upon what I’ve read, which most certainly would have used a PDF print driver (containing the mistaken print setting in question).
I want the vendor to testify as to who requested the wrong size media (I assure you that the vendor noticed the change and that an email or phone conversation likely followed to confirm the change).
I also want the software vendor to testify as to the number of rejected ballots which ended up on adjudication...a total which MUST match up to the number of ballots in the so-called ‘black bags’.
The ballot discrepancy is not a clue: It is the tell.
I thought Jarrett testified that there were only 20 inch ballot images created for the election, and that no 19 inch ballot images existed. He even confirmed it’s his team that does the creating and he signs off.
So if the defense is testifying that only 20 inch images exist, AND there is only 20 inch paper, they why is shrink to fit even being talked about?
The only way I see shrink to fit being relevant in any way is if some of the machines were actually fed with 19 inch ballots, and they were trying to shrink the 20 inch image.
Most likely the printer driver software. My canon has a “fit to page” option and i have seen this on my old HP’s as well. There is usually a scale option.
And at the end of the day. the ballots were all hand counted. end of story.
Adobe Acrobat has a shrink to fit setting. I use it all the time when printing PDF documents.
You’re mixing apples with oranges, scanners with printers.
That, and any PDF application will have a shrink to fit and expand to fit feature.
The one thing you were right about is did Hobbs stay after the rest of the crew were done archiving, resetting, testing, certifying, securing tabulators? I didn’t save the clip that showed this.
The “printers” involved in this are specialty devices designed to work with election systems software. Ballot size requirements vary to accommodate the number of offices, candidates, and other issues involved in the election at hand. Changing the printed ballot size is a feature that CAN be legitimately used. Unfortunately, crooks found a way to misuse it.
News reports on Nov 8 and 9, 2022 said that after hours of problems, technicians arrived on scene who changed the printer settings TO MAKE THE IMAGES DARKER. After the darkening, the tabulators could read the ballots. Not a peep about this “darkening fix” in the trial. So WHO SPREAD THE FALSE STORY just after the election? Unpeel that and you start showing criminal intent. Someone was hiding what they knew about the sizing issue early on. The attempts of Election Officials to pretend they didn’t know about the image size issue is BS.
Shrink to fit is, in my understanding, an application-level setting. Some copiers have a shrink to fit option, but it takes a literal picture and resizes it. That process does take some time and computing resources, and that copier is usually on the expensive side of the equation.
Shrink-to-fit is not the responsibility of the application, in the three most common operating systems: Windows, Mac, Linux. It's triggered by the printer driver. The print window, to the applications, is a fixed size. Scaling is done either by driver software or in the printer itself.
Shrink to fit is dead easy with printers using Adobe Postscript imagers.
It can be configured as a global setting. The application doesn't know it's being done. I speak as a developer of applications in Windows and Linux.
"The settings are set by a script." Depends on whether the script knows about all the setting. Because most goverment pukes use Windows, this could be a Registry setting that was overlooked by the script.
To know for sure, we would need more details on just what the script looks like.
Fat chance of that.
Shrink to fit is an option in almost any publishing software.
Most printers, today, have the computing power to do such a thing, many can, and have that option, but not all of them.
I would assume shrink to fit would take into account the length and width of the paper else you get distortion. Also the marks on the printed ballot used to align the selections for the reader would be moved by shrink to fit. Therefore:
Changing the paper size in the printer would distort any ballot cast if shrink to fit was implemented.