It’s time for an update on El Paso, CO where four candidates are involved in a recount effort to validate the election results from last June.
The Gateway Pundit has been following this recount closely. We’ve even caught the attention of the far-left CCP funded LeadStories with a bogus fact check.
This morning we learned that another petition has been filed by the candidates, this one including statewide candidate Tina Peters. The lawsuit calls for the recount process to be relinquished to the Secretary of State’s office rather than the local clerk and recorder. The petition argues that candidates who rendered partial payment for a recount are being excluded from the recount because they can’t afford the $10,000 “vendor programming” fee that has been charged to all candidates involved. Currently, each of the four candidates have paid $10,000 each to a “vendor”, believed to be Dominion, for 40 hours of work at $250/hour. The lawsuit argues that the other candidates shouldn’t be subject to this same barrier once the $10,000 payment has been accounted for.
In the petition’s Statement of Facts, they make reference to a significant admission by CISA, the federal agency overseeing election infrastructure. The reference was to the CISA advisory regarding J. Alex Halderman’s still sealed report out of Georgia.
In the CISA advisory, they recommend mitigation steps including “conducting rigorous post-election tabulation audits of the human-readable portions of the physical ballots and paper records, to include reviewing ballot chain of custody and conduction voter/ballot reconciliation procedures.” None of these are being followed. Rather, the recount is using the same vulnerable machines addressed in the advisory.
The last line is key:
“Halderman further opined that the failures include the ability to defeat ALL state safety procedures including logic and accuracy testing and risk limiting audits.”
An expert who was afforded unprecedented access to these machines claiming that the very Logic and Accuracy Test that just yielded a 53% adjudication rate claims that the machines can circumvent the L&A testing? What could go wrong!
Flashback: Halderman was the same expert who was heralded as a hero by election fraud deniers when he “debunked” the Antrim County report from Bailey v. Antrim County. However, using his own logic in that instance raised more questions about a race in Dekalb Co, Georgia with strikingly similar attributes.
So now that we have an expert on these machines who has had more access than anyone involved in this recount in El Paso, perhaps its time the Secretary of State allows a hand recount to commence in lieu of a machine recount with the same vulnerable machines that were subject to the CISA advisory.
But there’s more…
Also developing in El Paso, we have a report from Ashe in America’s blog that an election judge has been caught on camera filling out not just recount batch labels, but also the original count. In the video below, you can see the man fill out the top sticker, which is for the June 28th primary, as well as the bottom sticker, which is for the ongoing recount.
Both stickers have different election judges with notably different signatures.
How can this man fill out both?
In the video, you can see he fills out “98” twice in the box for the total in that particular batch. The top sticker is for the June 28th primary, which should already be filled out. Because its got the signature of another election judge, the legality of this man filling it out is highly suspect. The video above and the pictures below are evidence that he has done this on at least two batches as the video had “98” ballots and the envelope pictured below had “49”.
