To me it appears to be one more flawed but creative attempt to besmirch the election. But you can judge for yourself.
In a joint statement, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel said ASOG "has no apparent expertise in election administration and technology," and its work appears "limited to the previous release and amplification of other false information and fake documents."
Nessel said it is common for parties in a case to hire a consultant who will support their desired conclusion. "It’s why we give the other parties in a lawsuit a chance to depose the expert and challenge their qualifications in court,” which did not happen in this case, Nessel said.
Link: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/michigan-company-officials-dispute-report-antrim-county-voting/6538325002/
"In his court filing in the case, Brater said the report suggests it is improper to divert write-in ballots for adjudication, but that is the only way those ballots can be counted. Contrary to the suggestion in the report, this does not allow administrators to “change votes,” beyond determining for whom write-in votes should be counted, Brater wrote."
Whaaaat? So, they can't "change" votes but, they "determine" who the votes should be counted for. LOL.
This does not allow administrators to “change votes,” beyond determining for whom write-in votes should be counted. As in "for whom" (which voter) should be counted.
(no message)
(no message)
It's no surprise that the SoS would disagree and try to discredit the audit. Unfortunately, she fails in her attempt. It's not really a credible argument to suggest you need to be an expert specifically in election systems to perform an effective system audit.
There are obvious questions that she conveniently doesn't address. Such as the deleted log files (a BIG problem) or the 68% error rate. If they have nothing to hide, then let's get this in court and bring in opposing experts. I've noticed that not a single person refuting the questions around irregularities has offered to make a sworn statement backing up their assertions.
And we can already conclude with reasonable confidence that the SoS outright lied about the "human error" they previously claimed. Her credibility is questionable.
I'm perfectly willing to see hard evidence from an opposing IT expert refuting the claims in the audit. Statements from the SoS don't cut it though.
A few thoughts. Did you read the entire article? I didn't intend for the SOS to be the sole explanation. It was an to pique your interest.
1. Michigan Elections Director Jonathan Brater said in a weekend court filing the report "makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting errors that are either nonexistent or easily explained." Let's see where this goes. Is it one more nefarious claim?
2. "this is caused by intentional errors in the system," the report says. This suggests a major conspiracy to overturn the election. Has yet to be proven in any fashion.
And I am not claiming that fraud definitely took place (although it may sound like I am). I would just like a deeper investigation of things without claims being dismissed out of hand. The audit is a perfect example. There is documented analysis and supporting data. It can't be refuted without actual data and evidence from IT experts. Not by general "trust me" statements from state officials.
(no message)
We often don't agree, but I respect you.
Same to you, there are times I lose my mind though :)
...that will not be presented in court, where there are penalties for presenting bullshit.
(no message)