ALERT: Voting Machines Need To Be Banned From Further Use In U.S. Elections Until Shady ‘Adjudication Process’ Is Defined And Corrected

(TeaParty.org Exclusive) – Ever since the 2020 election, many of the people in this great nation of ours have come to accept that there is a lot of shady, dirty, underhanded things going on behind-the-scenes being carried out by crafty Democrats who are willing to steal power to lord over others.

According to a new report from Gateway Pundit, the American public has discovered that voting machines and systems that are connected to the machines have the ability to send out ballots that are cast on them to adjudication. You might be wondering what, exactly, is adjudication.

Well, Pursue Democracy has a pretty good explanation for “adjudication.”

Adjudication seems like a pretty easy “in” for folks to change someone’s vote to a candidate they didn’t cast a ballot for, doesn’t it? When an excessive number of these ballots are sent into adjudication, those ballots can be altered.

The next question is who, exactly, is the person that gets to decide who the individual voter was actually casting their ballot for? It’s pretty clear that there need to be controls put in place to prevent this process from leaving the door open for folks to commit fraud.

There’s been a ton of talk about the voting machines that were used in the 2020 presidential election. A lot of folks blame the machines themselves for all of the strange errors and issues that took place that night. However, was it really the machines that were responsible or was it the systems around the machines?

It’s possible the systems are what actually need to be addressed more so than the machines themselves. Or maybe it’s both. However, if these issues are not properly addressed, then many of the controls in the voting machines then become tools for corrupt Democrats to use to commit fraud.

“In Antrim County Michigan, Attorney Mathew Deperno noted that a setting in the voting machines in that county caused an excessive number of ballots to be forced to be reviewed through ‘adjudication’. What this means, is these ballots were sent somewhere to someone to review and determine the results of the election for these ballots,” the GP report says.

“We first noted this in this audit of Antrim County performed by Deperno. We reported after the forensic examination of 16 Dominion Voting machines by a group brought in by attorney Deperno, that the Dominion Voting machines there were assigned a 68.05% error rate. DePerno explained that when ballots are put through the machine, a whopping 68.05% error rate means that 68.05% of the ballots are sent for bulk adjudication, which means they collect the ballots in a folder,” the report continues.

“’The ballots are sent somewhere where people in another location can change the vote,’” DePerno went on to explain. The number of votes going to adjudication should be a fraction of this,” GP said.

It was also discovered that voting machines in the state of Nevada were found to have a 70 percent adjudication rate in Clark County. These same ballots in Clark County were then sent to another location for adjudication, where an individual would be able to determine who the ballots were actually cast for. This is an extraordinary number of ballots to be sent in for adjudication. Smell something fishy?

“In Georgia, we noticed that an individual can ‘adjudicate’ a ballot by him or herself and can even push through blank ballots into the system and record them as voting for whomever they want. Also, the adjudication system in Dominion provides no data (or audit trail) to show who did the adjudication on a ballot. This weakness needs to be addressed in the voting machine systems,” GP’s report says.

“Controls need to be built to prevent adjudication settings greater than a fraction of a percent allowed in the machines. Also, controls need to be built to record the date and time and person who adjudicates ballots. In addition, the system should mandate that two people perform the adjudication and these individuals should be from different parties,” the report goes on to say.

In Fulton County Georgia, it was announced after the election took place that they would need to address a staggering 100,000 ballots for adjudication. Jovan Pulitzer has pointed out how this was almost 93.67 percent of the ballots cast in the county. How can it be that almost all of the votes cast in the election were uncertain as to who the person was voting for and that they needed to be adjudicated? Again, this is not passing the smell test.

According to Pulitzer, the “bullseye” on the ballots in the state of Georgia were off in certain areas and when that happens, it means they need to be adjudicated. The voting systems connected with the machines are programmed to send any and all ballots where the bullseye is off to be adjudicated. So it’s possible these machines really are doing what they have been programmed to do, however, that doesn’t mean the ballots weren’t intentionally flawed.

Regardless, the mess that has ensued because of these machines and the systems surrounding them need to be overhauled to ensure they aren’t being used to silence the voices of millions of American citizens and allowing Democrats to rig elections so that they permanently stay in power.

Copyright 2021. TeaParty.org

Join The Uprisinghref>

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: josh


This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.teaparty.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

USSANews.com
A better search engine: DuckDuckGo.com.
Visit our Discussion Forum at Libertati.com.

Follow us: