Clark County Nevada said to have 70% "adjudication" rate, Same as Antrim County Fraud Machine

Image by Dean Weingarten
 

Second Amendment rights, indeed all rights in the Bill of Rights, appear to be up for grabs in this election. The election results are hotly contested, especially the accuracy and dependability of Dominion voting systems.

A number of reports are circulating around the internet, suggesting that Nevada Dominion vote counting machines have produced similar results to those seen in an Antrim County Michigan forensic audit.

A recap of the Antrim County, Michigan, forensic audit:

Only one county's Dominion voting machines appear to have been subjected to a forensic audit. The machines in Antrim County, Michigan were audited as part of an inquiry ordered by a Michigan judge, Kevin A. Elsenheimer.  

Michigan's Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, and Attorney General, Dana Nessel sought to block release of the results of the audit. Benson and Nessel are hard left Democrats.

Judge Kevin A. Elsenheimer later decided to release the results, which were explosive.

The forensic audit of the Antrim County, Michigan, voting machines produced startling claims. Here is a link to the pdf report  by Allied Security Operations Group. I have scanned and formated findings 6,7, and 8 below:

6. The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

7. The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable. This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error.  

8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim County from December 6, 2020 consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication.This high error rates proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.

Finding number 11 is extremely important to understand. If it is correct, forensic audits of the Nevada machines are essential.

11. It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity because it provides no meaningful observation of the adjudication processor audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicated the ballots. 

Consider the similarities between the Antrim County, Michigan results and those in Clark County, Nevada, as exposed by a Las Vegas Review Journal article.

On November 6, 2020, Thonda Prast, in the Las Vegas Review Journal, wrote an article on "How are Nevada ballots counted and verified?"  

Prast wrote an explanation of how mail in ballots were counted in Clark County. This paragraph is remarkable, given the information from Antrim County in Michigan. From reviewjournal.com:

All mail ballots in Clark County were counted first by running them through a digital scanner. If the scanner cannot read the ballot or determine the voter’s intent, the ballot is sent to an adjudication or duplication team, both of which are overseen by a bipartisan election board. County elections officials have said about 70 percent of ballots are sent to be reviewed by elections officials.

If 70% of ballots go to adjudication, what is the point of running them through the scanner? 

That would be 35% of all ballots in Clark County! The Antrim County, Michigan forensic audit report says there is no audit trail of ballots sent to adjudication.

 The Clark County statement says the adjudication or duplication team is "overseen" by a bipartisan election board. 

What does that mean?

We are talking about 210,000 ballots in Clark County which would go through this process. Was each one looked at individually, by bi-partisan observers of the "board"? 

How else would ballots, which have already been judged by the scanning machine, as beyond the ability of the scanner to read, be interpreted? 

A 70% rejection of ballots by scanner seems absurdly high. 

There may be a simple explanation. Clark County officials should show us, precisely, with logs and clear accountability, how these 210,000 ballots were counted and accounted for.  

The integrity of the 2020 elections, especially in "swing" states, is in doubt.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch