I wish someone would honestly respond to the suitcase video, but I haven't seen any attempted defense of it yet. I would really prefer not to believe Giuliani, and yet that video is pretty damn hard to get around.
None of it matters, of course, because realpolitik, and the biggest sin of the viking cosplayers was believing that any of this evidence matters.
Yes, I've seen that. It corroborates exactly what Giuliani was saying: the decision was made to bar observers and media from the room from the night, and the decision was made to nonetheless continue vote counting activities in their absence. That's the whole problem.
The only thing the statement adds is that they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong. That is not the same thing as having observers. Even North Korea investigates its own elections and concludes that it does nothing wrong.
I must have missed the part of the video where media and observers were barred from the room, rather than simply having left. Could you give me a timestamp?
With the whole thing being on camera and knowing that no secret ballot suitcases were smuggled in, are we to believe that in the absence of observers they somehow rigged the counting machines to mis-scan these ballots, even though the hand recount for Fulton only differed from the initial count by 0.07%?
The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots. Of course if you re-count the same ballots over again you'll come up with something roughly the same. This "hand recount had identical* results" mantra to reinforce the core idea "the election has been independently verified" may work on the general public but it shouldn't work on HN.
There's no need to believe the suitcases were smuggled in, although you yourself appear to have doubts in that direction. For example, they could be perfectly authentic ballots with some flawed provenance. A priori this seems the most plausible explanation.
> rather than simply having left.
Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling.
If that’s the issue with the video, then why does everyone’s main concern about it seem to be that they came from a box under a table? There’s certainly an implication that these were fake ballots that had been snuck in surreptitiously, given that its origin was clearly shown in the same video but had been cut out.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But then why is it called “SuitcaseGate”? Does “StandardContainerOfAbsenteeBallotsGate” not have the same deliberately made implication?
Beyond that, I don’t disagree that poll observers are important. But the ballots at this point had already been removed from both of their envelopes and stacked for scanning, while the observers were all present. If there was a flawed provenance to them, the observers observed it. At the point where those ballots were taken out of the box and scanned (again, all on camera) they’re nothing but pieces of paper with some bubbles filled in.
There’s no name. There’s no date. There’s no voter address. There’s no signature. Just ballots. Any questions of their provenance could only have been addressed earlier when they were taken out of their envelopes under the supervision of the election observers.
So with no observers present, they were pulled back out of the boxes and fed through the scanner. What did the observers need to observe that wasn’t captured on the surveillance tape? What part of this unobserved scanning process can’t be confirmed by a recount of the same ballots?
> Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling.
The Mitchell Harrison affidavit linked by another commenter specifically explains that he and Trevin McKoy came back that night and were escorted into the building. Counting had stopped before they arrived, but the point stands you’re bullshitting about it “having the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening.”
Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed. They were told to leave because counting was complete, then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation) they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased. This isn't getting any better!
Your whole argument boils down to "there's no need for observers because I trust the process". The whole point of observers is that it shouldn't be necessary to just trust the process. Right now what you and the media and HN are telling me, on pain of cancellation, is that 100% of the essentially self-selected people involved in the election are honest. That all of the dishonest people decided it was too much bother to do a day's work to influence the outcome of the election, because The Process is infallible. I guess I should be thankful that all the dishonest people didn't bother voting either, right?
> Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed.
When they arrived at the front door they were told counting had already been completed. Not sure whether you misread that or are suggesting the security person was lying about what was happening inside.
> They were told to leave because counting was complete,
They were told counting was complete, they were not told to leave, and they do not claim they were told to leave. But I can't blame them for making that assumption.
> then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation)
Agree with you here, when the secretary of state's office called and told them to resume counting, some effort should have been made to get the observers back in.
But the only work done was scanning of ballots that had already been cleared, and it was all on camera, and all of the work they did while unobserved can be directly confirmed by recounts. So even though this happened, I don't see how it's evidence that the election was rigged.
> they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased.
Having arrived at the front door after counting was finished, the one guard at the door stayed at the door instead of leaving his post, and he radioed someone else. The second person escorted them in, where they confirmed that yes, counting had ceased as they were told.
Is there a couple minute window in there where you could say "the second person took too long and was stalling to cover something?" Sure, allow me to flex my creative writing muscles to concoct a reverse-heist in which this could actually matter and have affected the election:
1) The (democratic leaning) Fulton County election officials shut down counting for the night and allowed observers to leave.
2) Observers having been cleared, they colluded with the (republican) secretary of state's office to arrange a cover to resume scanning ballots.
3) They then used the unobserved counting session as an excuse to unseal the boxes under the table of verified but uncounted ballots.
4) Having these containers of ballots open, they hacked the security cameras to cover their activities.
5) The footage we've seen was actually recorded in a replica of the ballot counting room that they built in a warehouse last October, and the people seen counting ballots on it are all actors.
6) With the cameras hijacked and no observers present, they introduce and count fake ballots that did not actually come from the previously observed and sealed boxes.
7) Steal election!
I don't have the full quality video recording or the forensic knowledge to analyze it, but as conspiracy theories go I don't find my scenario particularly compelling.
> The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots
But the provenance is on camera. Those ballots were right there with the rest of them. What exactly is the “auditing” you think the observers would have done that the Republican secretary of state’s staffer didn’t do?
The ballots were on camera in the room the entire time, if reporters had been sent home they still wouldn't have appeared out of a mystery suitcase. They were sealed on camera, then unsealed on camera, and counted on camera. They have been counted and recounted and recounted.
I don't know if reporters were "sent home" as you are claiming, or if they "left" as described by this video when election employees were initially closing up for the night, but either way the monitors and media saw those ballots go into the boxes and Giuliani was still lying about where they came from.
>The ballots were on camera in the room the entire time, if reporters had been sent home they still wouldn't have appeared out of a mystery suitcase. They were sealed on camera, then unsealed on camera, and counted on camera. They have been counted and recounted and recounted.
Here are the sworn affidavits that state the observers were too far to monitor what was being done with the boxes when they were brought in during the day [0].
>I don't know if reporters were "sent home" as you are claiming, or if they "left" as described by this video when election employees were initially closing up for the night, but either way the monitors and media saw those ballots go into the boxes and Giuliani was still lying about where they came from.
Here are the sworn affidavits of two poll watchers that say they were sent home [1]. This corroborates what David Shafer says happened that night [2]. Also ABC news reported the same, their source was Regina Waller [3].
I don’t have anything to add on monitoring distance, but both of the affidavits you linked specifically agree with the video that they left and not that they were kicked out, because everyone thought counting was finished for the night. Neither of them claims they wouldn’t have been allowed to stay if they had stayed until the room was empty.
What the state investigator says, and what those affidavits both appear to agree with, is
> Nobody told them to stay. Nobody told them to leave. Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do. And It was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to, as long as they were still working.
I’m going to give more credence to the affidavits of the people who were directly involved over the wording from ABC.
One of them did return later and was allowed in, but arrived as the counting was complete.
It’s an unfortunate situation that everyone was told it was closing down and then the secretary of state’s office called to tell them to keep counting, but that doesn’t support Giuliano’s claims about rigging the election with suitcases of ballots from under a table.
>I don’t have anything to add on monitoring distance, but both of the affidavits you linked specifically agree with the video that they left and not that they were kicked out, because everyone thought counting was finished for the night. Neither of them claims they wouldn’t have been allowed to stay if they had stayed until the room was empty.
It seems the reason they thought they were done counting is because a supervisor told the counters to go home, and said that they were done counting for the day.
Relevant part from the linked document (paragraph 8):
"Sometime after 10 o'clock p.m., the counting activity slowed. Shortly afterward, a younger lady with long braided but blond hair yelled out to all of them they should stop working and come back tomorrow (the next day, Wednesday November 4th) at 8:30 A.M.. Thereafter, all but 4 election employees left State Farm, leaving just the blond haired lady (who Michelle and I assumed was the supervisor), two older ladies and Regina Waller at the location. This lady had appeared through the night and Michelle and I believed her to be the supervisor."
I think that while it is possible the observers could have just stayed there until everyone left, it is likely that they believed what they were told -- that the counting would finish the next day.
At any rate, it is at best a bad look. I agree that it doesn't prove fraud or anything close. It does, however, look suspicious and IMHO warrants further investigation.
I'm almost certain that you're concern trolling in this thread.
However, if anyone else is actually interested in an explanation of this incident from the people in charge of the election, check out this 60 Minutes clip:
Ralph was in charge at State Farm Arena when those videos were filmed.
Edit: yes, I called him and we spoke back in December for about 30-45 minutes. I originally called about the barriers blocking observers during the recount and then asked about the suitcases as well.
Are you referencing the barriers that were filmed... from inside the room... by the dozens of national media crews and party observers? Those barriers?
Yes? They had metal fence barriers (like at a concert) up with chairs behind them for the observers. During the recount they had the observers 30-40 ft back which meant they weren't observing anything. They were just in the room.
I saw the obvious issue with this and called to ask why. His response was that "legally we're in compliance."
Wherein people posted views from the other side of the glass claiming they were trying to count the votes in secret or something. Which was ironic, given all the news crews and observers on the other side of the glass documenting the same thing.
I agree that its BS to keep observers so far back that they cannot meaningfully observe the counting.
None of it matters, of course, because realpolitik, and the biggest sin of the viking cosplayers was believing that any of this evidence matters.