Counting and a forensic audit are two different things. If there are 100 paper votes counted - of course you’re going to get 100 back. If 70 went to Biden and 30 to Trump - still equals 100, follow so far? You will always COUNT to 100.

The computer that tallied up said votes could be manipulated, hence forensics. What if 1 of every 2 Trump votes went to Biden? A paper count wouldn’t see that - a forensic audit would. It’s not always about computers and networks in this case - they are also looking at the paper the ballots were printed on. Another thing not evaluated during a “count”.

Noticed how democrats are okay with a “count” but deny forensic? That’s because they are different. Do you want a true democracy? One that is for the people, by the people? If so, you’d want faith restored in voting.

Things like no ID and mail-in voting are far from giving me any comfort in a legitimate election moving forward. But, the democrats want to win. Period - and fraud does just that. Allows them to win at any cost.

We DID audit them in the recounts. You just keep making crap up about what should go into an audit because you can't accept failure. Which, by the way, is your first problem because it violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9b) In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state WITH PARTICULARITY the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. You can't just suggest that maybe a computer might have maybe have been tampered with perhaps. Which computer? Who tampered with it? How? When? How do you know? You cannot just keep these indefinite perpetual investigations searching for something vague.

And anyway, it's a really simple matter to check computer records against hard copies of ballots. It wouldn't MATTER what a computer does because none of these states run purely digital votes anyway FOR THAT EXACT REASON!!!! And a hand count of the physical ballots found that the computers got it dead on the first time.

IT WAS FINE. BIDEN WON. WE CHECKED TWO OR THREE TIMES DEPENDING ON JURISDICTION.

Thank you for your long-winded answer expressing your lack of understanding regarding the topic.

Oh, well when you put it like that, I must be wrong. I never thought of it like that.

Well, if you understood what a forensic audit was - you wouldn’t have typed any of that out. So it’s evident you are uneducated in the matter.

I know EXACTLY what you mean by forensic audit. It means that after every audit, you'll make up some crap about something else they should be checking for because maybe the magic fraud fairy works in mysterious ways.

The word "forensic" was never meant to be a flimsy excuse to keep changing the goalposts but that's what you mean when you say it.

Once again, you’ve proven to us that you have no idea what it is. So do some research on it and get back to me when you have a better understanding of the topic.

Well when you put it like that, I must be wrong. I never thought of it like that.

Apparently you didn’t think at all.