Replies

1. Stop the counting (key point)
2. Enter all information into the election ledger.
3. Report the results of the election to the State.

By “key point” I mean to say, when the counting is stopped by the supervisor, the election is over and must be reported to the State (central board of elections).

Each State in question of fraud stopped and then restarted counting.
They began tabulating a new election with ballots withheld from the “books”.
Those ballots under the table in GA or delivered at 3AM in MI, were not ledgered in the 1st election.

There were 2 elections.

In every State, except for 5-6, the protocol was to evaluate the difference between the candidates and the number of votes left to count. When the difference is mathematically moot according to the candidate in the lead each election supervisor will: 1. Stop the counting (key point) 2. Enter all information into the election ledger. 3. Report the results of the election to the State. By “key point” I mean to say, when the counting is stopped by the supervisor, the election is over and must be reported to the State (central board of elections). Each State in question of fraud stopped and then restarted counting. They began tabulating a new election with ballots withheld from the “books”. Those ballots under the table in GA or delivered at 3AM in MI, were not ledgered in the 1st election.

Basically, the problem with that procedure is that for confidence in the integrity of the election, the first order of business is to publicly announce how many people voted immediately after the polls close. This way the number of ballots is finite, rather than expanding to match the number of votes needed win. When the number of voters is infinite, then the counting doesn't stop until the anointed candidate wins. So what happens is that instead of canvassing for missing votes, these cheaters were canvassing for missing "voters". Thus, because the "universe" of votes wasn't finite, the judges let them keep going, to "count every vote" as they were created.