See my other response to you, there's already been an audit. Observers are not required to be in the room, as my link makes clear. Of course, there's also this, this, this, and this — but sure, they're wrong too, there couldn't possibly be any acceptable explanation other than fraud.
This obviously has nothing to do with you being too committed to your position to admit you're wrong. It's not like this view is so rejected that it's literally had to escape to an eco-chamber website to be heard. News publishers definitely aren't retracting stories supporting election fraud out of fear of defamation lawsuits. The U.S. judiciary writ large totally hasn't categorically rejected election fraud claims.
A real full audit was not done and the people who did the "risk-limiting" audit was created and funded by big tech and the Soros foundation, how convenient for you. I'm sure you see nothing wrong with this, one of these companies is probably written on your paycheck.
VotingWorks was created within and incubated by the left-leaning Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) in December 2018 and later and spun off as a separate non-profit. [7] [8] CDT’s major donors are large technology firms, such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft; and large left-of-center foundations, including George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society, the Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. [9] [10]
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, VotingWorks announced it would be helping states scale-up voting by mail. An April 2020 news release announced VotingWorks was building VxMail, a set of tools to help implement and deploy vote-by mail with services such as ballot printing, envelope stuffing, mailing, ballot receipt, signature verification, and ballot tabulation.VxMail is designed to assist jurisdictions that previously had only a few hundred ballots to deal with manually, but now may have thousands or tens of thousands.
As I pointed out in my other comment, you're wrong here as well. Please check your sources and conduct your due diligence before posting disinformation, it makes legitimate conspiracy theories look bad.
See my other response to you, there's already been an audit. Observers are not required to be in the room, as my link makes clear. Of course, there's also this, this, this, and this — but sure, they're wrong too, there couldn't possibly be any acceptable explanation other than fraud.
This obviously has nothing to do with you being too committed to your position to admit you're wrong. It's not like this view is so rejected that it's literally had to escape to an eco-chamber website to be heard. News publishers definitely aren't retracting stories supporting election fraud out of fear of defamation lawsuits. The U.S. judiciary writ large totally hasn't categorically rejected election fraud claims.
A real full audit was not done and the people who did the "risk-limiting" audit was created and funded by big tech and the Soros foundation, how convenient for you. I'm sure you see nothing wrong with this, one of these companies is probably written on your paycheck.
VotingWorks
As I pointed out in my other comment, you're wrong here as well. Please check your sources and conduct your due diligence before posting disinformation, it makes legitimate conspiracy theories look bad.
Keep pushing MSM talking points shill.
Happy to! I see you're still not a fan of challenging any of my points head on.