🚀 go-pugleaf

The question is no longer who had more votes but rather:

Will fraud be allowed to determine the winner, or will fraud be exposed
in court with the result being the invalidation of a corrupted hand
count.

�����"Our goal," said one lawyer as he patiently lectured his new
charges, "is to preserve the Al Gore vote." The volunteers nodded. "It's
very, very important that if you see any kind of mark--a scratch, a
dent, a pinprick in Al Gore's column--that you challenge."
�����"When someone then asked what they should do if they found a Bush
ballot with an indent, the lawyer said: "Keep your lips sealed."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/decision2000/lat_dems001117.htm
By ELIZABETH MEHREN and JEFFREY GETTLEMAN, Times Staff Writers

"a scratch, a dent, a pinprick in Al Gore's column" will be considered
to show "intent" of the voter to have wanted to punch out the chad and
cast a vote for Gore. That "intent" will have one of two effects:

a) a ballot that has a clear hole in it in George Bush's column will
then be considered as having two holes, and the Bush vote will then be
invalidated. One less vote for Bush, one more Bush supporter denied the
right to cast a vote as given by the U.S. Constitution.

b) a ballot that has no hole punched for any Presidential candidate will
then become a vote for Gore. The voter who cast a vote of
"dissatisfaction" through a non-vote will have his or her vote cast for
Gore without knowledge or consent. The voter's right to not vote for
Gore is abridged.

Needless to say, the electors who are legally handling the ballots are
mostly, if not all, Democrats. Their keen eyesight can spot "a scratch,
a dent, a pinprick in Al Gore's column" but will never see such a mark
in the column of George Bush. As far as the Republican observers are
concerned, the hand is quicker than the eye, but they are allowed to
speak the words "object" or "objection."