When is a perfect oval evidence of vote fraud? Watching a Dominion Voting System sales presentation from 2017, I have to wonder: Could the thieves have outsmarted themselves?

Having sworn off professional sporting events like many of you, I have made what feels like the moribund turn to other pursuits, such as watching a Dominion Voting System Presentation from 2017. I did this so you don’t have to; unless your Lawrence Welk Betamax of Cissy and Bobby’s greatest hits is fuzzing up, then by all means, take a look.

In the video we have a team of sales and demo experts (Dr. Eric Coomer, Waldeep Singh, David Marino, CEO John Poulos and other support staff) “…to outline new voting equipment options in Chicago on April 13, 2017.” This was the 4th of four election equipment videos and had a few items of note that I haven’t heard or read anywhere before and I wanted to share those with you. (video is almost an hour long)

Dr. Eric Coomer YouTube screengrab (cropped)

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Dr. Eric Coomer. Recognize that name? In this video, Coomer comes across as a consummate professional, knowing hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line. In my professional experience, it was a very good demo highlighting the capabilities and features of the hardware and software that Dominion Voting Systems sells. As he walks through his measured and informational demo, you would never know the alleged radical and hateful conservative contempt kicking around in the back of his head. So rather than dismiss Mr. Coomer outright, let me present some information that has been hiding in plain sight in what is otherwise an unremarkable video. Given the propensity for technocrats to scuttle damaging info, I am surprised Google hasn’t memory holed this item, nor has Dominion has requested a takedown.

From the American Thinker article:

The presentation takes an interesting turn when Dr. Coomer presents the Imagecast Evolution Ballot Marking Device (BMD) at the 15:00 mark. It functions as an all- in-one (votes, tabulates, and prints the ballot) and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) solution as well. ADA voters get a blank ballot to insert and the voter can use any ADA compliant input device attached to the unit or use the device itself. An internal printer marks the ballot for the voter and directly deposits into the ballot collection box. At the 18:30 mark, David Marino states the following (emphasis added)

Something important, uh, on these marks that are created on the ballot is we have a huge library of handmade marks so it’s not a perfect oval that you are going to be able to identify that that was a mark by a machine. But it’s, it’s ah, it’s a library of different random hand marks that looks like somebody else used a Sharpie to vote the ballot. So you are never going to be able to say this is ah, a ballot voted by the accessible uh voter, this is a ballot voted by a person with a Sharpie for example, for, with the mark.

Dr. Coomer follows immediately with:

Yeah, again it’s all about preserving voter anonymity, um you know if, if you only have one or two disabled voters in a given precinct an if you’re using standard marking techniques where they’re, uh uh an exact perfect fill of that oval um you would be able to uh distinguish that ballot from somebody that just hand marked it. So this is one of those further steps that we do um to preserve that anonymity.

A library of different random marks to avoid a ballot appearing differently from hand marked ballots becomes more critical considering the next segment of his presentation. In other words, their system prints electronically cast ballots that cannot be differentiated from a hand marked ballot.

Under the guise of protecting the identities of ADA voters, they use a library of imperfect ovals that look like they were done by hand.

It could still be detected, just not as easily. The ink from a Sharpie is going to look a little different than from a printer. For one thing, a Sharpie will bleed through and in an inconsistent manner depending on how much time it’s in contact with the paper and how hard you push. The printer may or may not bleed through. Most likely not since ballot paper stock is usually thicker than paper used in a typical office or home.

Sharpie ink might be a little blacker or bluer or more opaque than the printer too.

“But it’s, it’s ah, it’s a library of different random hand marks that looks like somebody else used a Sharpie to vote the ballot. So you are never going to be able to say this is ah, a ballot voted by the accessible uh voter,”

Maybe now we know why there was an emergency call for Sharpies in Arizona. If all of the genuine ballots were marked with a blue pen, but fake ballots were printed with what looks like a black Sharpie...

Bottom line it:

Why cover up that a ballot was (legally) machine printed as ADA assistance for a disabled voter, by printing human-looking marks? Why?

Next, are ADA assist-voter ballot count percentage significantly above historical numbers?

The aroma around all this is that of being downwind of a big pig farm on a hot summer day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR THE VIDEO...