I've already said that if this is clean Vegetable is a legit prez.
Not in this OP you didn't. My question would then be. Why does this particular audit convince you and NOT those before? Or for that matter the DOJ under Barr saying there was no election fraud? Or Sidney Powell saying that her election fraud claims were so ridiculous that no reasonable person would accept them? Or other lawyers for Trump saying in court that they weren't aware of any widespread election fraud?
If you don't accept all those things why do you accept the results of this particular audit?
Or would you. Now you need to answer that.
Providing that audit meets the judicial standard for such audits. I would have no problem accepting its results.
Show me the audits were forensic before? I don't recall that
A more in-depth investigation into vote accuracy is called a forensic audit. [In this situation, “forensic” means “the use of science in the investigation and establishment of facts.”]
This is the closest I've come to an actual definition of a forensic audit in election terms. Something I find funny. Considering it's a term that gets thrown around a lot.
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66844/Post-Audit-Report This seems to fit this definition
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/66843/SLI-Compliance-Forensic-Audit-Report?bidId= Please note the title in the header.
That's great. Can you be a bit more specific as to why you feel this way? In light of all the things that are mentioned before that should alleviate those "feelings"?