Thread by @Garrett_Archer

I need to go through a Jovan Pulitzer video that "the media doesn't want you to know."

He is showing his hand at what may be on the report.

It's called "Legal Ballots Are Encoded," and like most things Jovan puts out. It is extremely misleading.

A thread:

In the video, Jovan is showing an extremely closeup of what I assume is a Maricopa ballot. He then tells people:
"Watch it for your own eyes."
"Those are the coding in the ballot."
"This is what our systems do."

At :36 he goes on to blames the media for talking about "bamboo ballots" and that it was never about bamboo (it was, but I digress). "They play on your mind and play tricks and jokes on you because they think you are all a bunch of cabbage heads."

So what is Jovan showing in this video. They are called "microdots" and yes, they do exist. They are little yellow pixels that some color printers add to a print and they act as a sort of tracking code (serial number, date and time of print)

BBC article: bbc.com/future/article…

At this point, if you are preconceived to believe in fraud you are probably getting ready to "BOOM."

But Jovan stops there, because he wants you to boom.

So do Maricopa ballots have microdots?

The answer is "some."

I talked to @RunbeckElection (remember, not Dominion) after someone showed me this video to ask about the microdots. They said that one type of their ballot on demand printers do have microdots.

The large commercial printers for the 1.9 MM early ballots?

No.

So this begs the question. If only a fraction of the county's voted ballots have microdots, what is the point of releasing this video? What does it prove other than attempting to rile up those that believe in election fraud?

Roughly 1/2 of "microdot" ballots were probably in person early voters, so the chain of custody does pass to the county for possible adjudication. But the other half are election day, which means the ballot goes printer ->poll worker->voter->tabulation machine.

All of the ballots in question are printed on the spot, so at no point could a microdotted ballot be "injected" into the system without a voter showing ID.

Jovan is pulling a post history History Channel stunt here, using scientific tools to measure something but conveniently leaves out the relevance of that measurement so that the audience can fill it in themselves.

I would also add to this, even if someone had control of the microdots to manipulate the code, there would be a discrepancy with the image and the cast vote record, something Jovan does not show.

So again, leaving the decision up to the audience.