Really? They just counted the same ballots with no forensic examination. I watched Jovan Pulitzer hack into the machines live during his testimony to Georgia’s senate. I posted the video many pages ago. So you’re wrong.What Jovan Pulitzer says is very possibly true. But when an audit is done and matches actual ballots against the votes tallied by the machines and they match 100%, that proves that the machines did not alter the results. Ballots were not physically changed. The output would be changed and the audit in Georgia proves that was NOT done. Nice try, but you are WRONG.
Here it is again Speedy, just for you;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jVrhu97Y9-0
I hope YouTube is on your approved sources list
VOTING MACHINES��
Matt Deperno isn't the first person to claim that people are gaining "remote access" to the voting machines.
In Georgia, 20-year election worker, Susan Voyles, claimed Dominion tech specialists “operated remotely” on her and her teams’ ballot-marking devices and poll pads after the team experienced some technical problems with the machines.
"They operated remotely on both the ballot-marking device and on the poll pads."
It's not a stretch of the imagination that the entire state of Georgia's election was connected to the internet considering the entire state uses Dominion ballot-marking devices as their voting machines.
Even NBC News said ES&S is using 14,000 modems around the country.
Remember, anything that can be "remotely accessed" is hooked up to the internet and therefore can be hacked.
Subscribe: @KanekoaTheGreat Originally Posted by bambino
You keep using the term "forensic audit" but keep failing to define how a forensic audit would change the audit that was done in Georgia. Or Arizona.