Replies

his testimony was spot on

When I watched the video of Mr Curtis several things bothered me. So I did a little checking.

I had seen it linked to as fairly recent testimony. I knew it couldn't be because Stephanie Tubbs Jones is no longer living. I discovered that this is from 2004.

I couldn't figure out why there was applause for a witness testifying under oath. Especially testifying that he was willing to engage in fraud. If my sources are accurate, this hearing was conducted because the Dems were accusing Bush of stealing Ohio votes from Kerry. And it was attended by Dem members of the US House Judiciary Committee at the urging of John Conyers about vote suppression. That explains why Maxine Waters was in a hearing conducted in Ohio.

I was puzzled why there seemed to be smiles and celebration at times. Turns out Mr Curtis (Dem) was preparing to run against the politician (Pub) he accuses in his testimony.

I have no idea about the accuracy of Mr Curtis' testimony. I am certainly not accusing him of lying. I am concerned though that a video of Dems interviewing a fellow Dem (who may have an agenda) may not be the smoking gun it seems to be. If my sources are accurate, Pubs didn't attend the hearing. I think we should be careful not to get punked by something that may have been a dog and pony show.

I have no idea about the accuracy of Mr Curtis' testimony. I am certainly not accusing him of lying.

I guess what I meant by "spot on" was in a technical sense. There was nothing he said that was not true in a technical sense. I really don't think what he is talking about is all that hard to pull off and with the stakes this high and a propensity for lack of morals, there is motive for the democRATs to do it also.

I agree it even looks like a dog and pony show with the questioners not having clue one what they were talking about or how to properly frame the questions. But that doesn't negate the technical accuracy of his testimony. I know there are several postings that are taking this video further than I am. I am only interested in the technical part of the testimony.

What I will also say is that I have no idea what safeguards are in place to "checksum" the object code against the verified source code or manual checks to ensure proper counting. Perhaps those are in place and that's why both parties are OK with these results in an accuracy sense.