>Thoughts?
Fingerprints are a thing, too.
I'd be interested to see how many ballots have absolutely no fingerprints, other than poll-workers' on them.
If we are going the forensic route.
How many of you wiped down your ballots after filling them out to make sure you didn't leave any fingerprints?
There's room for plausible deniability if people decided to wear rubber gloves to fill out their ballots. But that scenario is far less likely for those who mailed in ballots.
If ballots were created for the specific purpose of flooding the vote, they may have used gloves to hide their fingerprints in that scenario. That, to me, would be suspicious if all these ballots did not have any unique fingerprints on them, other than that of poll-workers processing said fraudulent ballets.
However, if poll-workers were frantically filling out ballots post-election to cover the spread, then there would likely be patterns revealed in multiple ballots, based on how a person filled out ballots. As long as they did not think far enough ahead to use rubber gloves.
Typically, when I write on a loose piece of paper, one of my hands will stabilize, as the other proceeds to write.
If I were a forensic investigator working on an audit, that may be something I'd consider.
Sure as fuck don't think that these dipsticks were smart enough to use dead people's fingerprints to accompany the fraudulent ballots being cast in their names.