In one example noted during video, 21 Bernie votes were erased and 49 Hillary votes added to audit tally in order to match machine count. In this one precinct, this change from the actual results accounted for nearly 20% of overall votes cast. The actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing.
After this hearing, the results were not changed. They remained at the machine counted / “adjusted” hand-count original tally.
Since I failed to summarize the original diary, here’s InterKitty’s summary from one of the below comments:
It was an audit to check voting machine performance only. It was not an official electoral recount and will not change the election outcome.
The contention in question was that a CBOE employee carrying out the recount of an early voting machine simply corrected their tally to square with the electoral result, even though the hand-count tally was off by 70 votes in favor of Clinton.
Other electoral observers at the meeting testified they had seen similar behavior on he part of other CBOE employees conducting the audit — for example, counting ballots up to a predetermined number found by the machine, then ignoring additional ballots beyond that number that showed the machine undercounted.
There’s no way to know how egregious the errors in the machine count and their purported audit were without further investigation and research.
Needless to say, such work is unlikely to occur.
Some people are arguing over the term ‘fraud’ saying intent is needed. Well, both correcting your own count instead of reporting the discrepency apparently doesn’t signal any intent. Asking for sign off from an observer without allowing them to witness anything apparently doesn’t signal intent.
This is like the pro-Hillary crowd saying there’s no proof Hillary is influenced by big money donors. They want an unfair standard of proof — irrefutable evidence and admissions. Who cares that the Clinton Foundation gets 8 figure donations from Saudi Arabia and then soon after the State department approves unprecedented weapons sales to them? Who cares that she and her husband have taken over $100 million in speaking fees from corporations, and then she hides behind Dodd-Frank over banks being too big to fail, even though Dodd-Frank was written by a guy who is now a lobbyist and a guy who admits — in 2012 — money influences and admits taking money from banks! Who cares that we KNOW for a FACT because it is ADMITTED IN PUBLIC that lobbyists often help WRITE LEGISLATION that ends up in Congress.
Here is your smoking gun. The machine tally does not match the hand count tally. The official, instead of doing anything about that, simply adjusts her hand count to match the machine. THAT IS FRAUD. Not a mistake, not a slip up, not a cock up, not lazy, not anything other than FRAUD.