Sloppiness but no fraud. That is a determination of intent, an opinion, which is a judicial function, not a prosecutorial function. Regardless, did it affect the election? Clear that it did, which justifies the forensic audit. Raffensberger’s office is either incompetent or derelict in their duties. When taken in context of the millions his office received from Zuckerberg to conduct the election, it is clear his office was compromised ethically, and therefore his actions appear to be more intentional than incompetence. Raffensberger cannot investigate his own office which appears to be ethically compromised, an outside investigation is warranted.
Sloppiness but no fraud. That is a determination of intent, an opinion, which is a judicial function, not a prosecutorial function. Regardless, did it affect the election? Clear that it did, which justifies the forensic audit. Raffensberger’s office is either incompetent or derelict in their duties. When taken in context of the millions his office received from Zuckerberg to conduct the election, it is clear his office was compromised ethically, and therefore his actions appear to be more intentional than incompetence. Raffensberger cannot investigate his own office which appears to be ethically compromised, an outside investigation is warranted.