The Gateway Pundit reported previously about the recount proceedings in El Paso County, CO.
The logic and accuracy testing portion of the recount began late last week but caused some concern when the 4216 “test” ballots returned a 53% adjudication (2266 out of 4216).
This report has since been “fact-checked” by far-left LeadStories. Yes, the Facebook/Google/ByteDance funded LeadStories.
We already know enough about Facebook and their CTCL money in the 2020 election. We also know about Google and their mass censorship of conservative content on YouTube and in their search engine. But what about ByteDance?
The Chinese company that owns Tik-Tok recently gave a board seat to the CCP. Why is a CCP influenced outlet being garnered as “truth” in the United States?
All I ask is that you read the following and make your own determination about whether you consider the Logic and Accuracy test in El Paso a “success” or a “fail”.
It has been explained by the Secretary of State’s office that they allegedly changed the parameters of the machines to be more sensitive by adjudicating undervotes, overvotes, and blank votes. Since each candidate was required to pay a $10,000 fee for “vendor programming/support”, and since no one witnessed these changes, that also calls into question what was done to these machines prior to this testing. Why is the sensitivity of the machines adjusted for a recount and not the general election testing? Why weren’t the candidates given access to the updated parameters prior to the count, or at least notified that the new testing would yield shockingly different results? It seems simple enough: “Ok folks, this test should yield a 53% adjudication rate because of updated parameters. We know this because they’re all computer generated ballots and we changed the parameters on the machines”. Nope. Nothing.
LeadStories has already engaged in pulling the blindfold over the masses by “fact” checking my previous story on The Gateway Pundit with loose explanations and semantic pretzels. Those directly involved and party to this debacle are cited as “experts” to explain away their own shortcomings. The best was the quote from Dominion themselves:
“The machines are doing exactly what they have been configured to do during pre-election testing. Any claims about machine ‘failures’ are 100% false and a misrepresentation of the process.”
The machines aren’t doing what they have been configured to do during pre-election testing because they didn’t do this during pre-election testing. In fact, quite the opposite occurred.
According to candidate for Clerk Peter Lupia, when they tested this exact same deck back in June 2022, they only adjudicated 6 or 7 ballots per batch. It is worth noting that 6 or 7 ballots per batch is still an unacceptable rate of adjudication. Assuming each batch had 100 ballots, this would mean approximately 294 ballots were adjudicated back in June. This is an order of magnitude difference from last weeks test.
LeadStories went on to cite the Secretary of State’s office:
“As a result of the fact that El Paso County has four recounts taking place, for Secretary of State, Senate District 9, County Clerk and Recorder, and County Coroner, a high number of ballots are being sent to bipartisan teams of election judges for adjudication. This is to be completely expected. El Paso’s voting system is working exactly as it should.”
Completely expected?? Witnesses on the ground state that there was chaos in the counting room when machines began spitting out more than every other ballot for adjudication. Clerk Broerman was reportedly rushing to find election judges and observers to help with 53% adjudication rate. None of the candidates were “expecting” this. No one in El Paso was.
So it seems the only one who may have “completely expected” this was the Secretary of State herself. Perhaps there is a severe communication discrepancy between her office and the El Paso Clerk.
According to 8 C.C.R. 1501-1 Rule 10.13.1:
In accordance with section 1-10.5-102(3)(b), C.R.S., if there are no
discrepancies in the test under Rule 10.12, the recount must be
conducted in the same manner as the ballots were counted in the election
except as outlined in this Rule. If there are unresolvable discrepancies in
the test, the recount must be conducted as a hand count under Rule
10.13.5.
Secretary of State Griswold has an excellent opportunity here and now to issue a hand recount order, essentially have it paid for by the candidates rather than the state, and be able to validate her claims that Colorado is the “Gold Standard” for elections.
Instead, she is choosing to force candidates to litigate this out in court, costing tax payers thousands in legal defense fees.
