From what I can tell, Kemp didn’t steal the election (btw, that’s a left-leaning news source according to this site). If anything, it encouraged more Democrats to get out and vote, not less.
I don’t know, that’s certainly pretty sus. Here’s an article I found about it for a House seat, which Kemp oversaw but was not running in.
The server in question, which served as a statewide staging location for key election-related data, made national headlines in June after a security expert disclosed a gaping security hole that wasn’t fixed six months after he reported it to election authorities.
…
The plaintiffs were counting on an independent security review of the Kennesaw server, which held electronic poll book data and ballot definitions for counties, to demonstrate the system’s unreliability.
I haven’t read a ton about it, but it sounds like there are legitimate concerns (at least about the original system), but the issues are theoretical. I read it as a smear lawsuit intended to cast doubt on the election process, similar to what Trump did when he challenged the election.
I’m interested in seeing the outcome of the lawsuit, but I’m guessing there will be no evidence of vote tampering, just like with a Trump’s suits. I hope evidence is still accessible but we won’t know until the lawsuit concludes.
I was thinking of the wrong election. When the state gets sued over votes and those votes just so happen to be erased, that is suspicious af. But that wasn’t 2018. Kemp wasn’t running in the election where GA wiped the hard disks, but he was in charge at the time.
The 2018 election where he was able to remove voters from the registry and close poll sites is just standard conflict-of-interest, I suppose.
Or in a non-conspiratorial vein, it’s literally his job to remove obsolete voters from the registry and ensure there are enough (and not too many) polls to keep costs in line.
I don’t know anything about that guy to know if he’s acting in good faith or not. I don’t live in Georgia, and I’ve only been there for a couple days ever in my life. Maybe he’s a corrupt pile of crap, or maybe he was just doing his job. The news on this is crazy slanted, but it seems like he was at least acting within the law.
From what I can tell, Kemp didn’t steal the election (btw, that’s a left-leaning news source according to this site). If anything, it encouraged more Democrats to get out and vote, not less.
Then why was the server wiped, and then the backup wiped?
I don’t know, that’s certainly pretty sus. Here’s an article I found about it for a House seat, which Kemp oversaw but was not running in.
It looks like the lawsuit is finally being heard in court as of earlier this year.
I haven’t read a ton about it, but it sounds like there are legitimate concerns (at least about the original system), but the issues are theoretical. I read it as a smear lawsuit intended to cast doubt on the election process, similar to what Trump did when he challenged the election.
I’m interested in seeing the outcome of the lawsuit, but I’m guessing there will be no evidence of vote tampering, just like with a Trump’s suits. I hope evidence is still accessible but we won’t know until the lawsuit concludes.
I was thinking of the wrong election. When the state gets sued over votes and those votes just so happen to be erased, that is suspicious af. But that wasn’t 2018. Kemp wasn’t running in the election where GA wiped the hard disks, but he was in charge at the time.
The 2018 election where he was able to remove voters from the registry and close poll sites is just standard conflict-of-interest, I suppose.
Or in a non-conspiratorial vein, it’s literally his job to remove obsolete voters from the registry and ensure there are enough (and not too many) polls to keep costs in line.
I don’t know anything about that guy to know if he’s acting in good faith or not. I don’t live in Georgia, and I’ve only been there for a couple days ever in my life. Maybe he’s a corrupt pile of crap, or maybe he was just doing his job. The news on this is crazy slanted, but it seems like he was at least acting within the law.