Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 “StandardContainerOf…
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 obser…
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.
> This isn't getting any better!
If you say so.