The original audit was simply to verify that count was correct. Nothing more. This only validated that the ballot scanners functioned and no simple miscount occurred.
The first audit had nothing to do with signature verification, illegal votes, double voting, or any other form of fraud. They weren't auditing fraudulent votes. They were just making sure the votes added up the same both times, regardless of where the votes came from. Total meaningless charade.
I'd hope any major vote rigging operation would at least be able to count the fraudulent votes correctly.
this^
It's word semantics. They did not audit. Calling it an audit is a purposeful lie. They recounted. That's not an audit. Legally they are very different activities.
A count simply counts what you have. An audit carefully reviews how you obtained the items of count and if it was legally permissible to include them.
For example, millions of ballots were poisoned outside chain of custody. Legally they cannot be counted. A recount recounted them.
(post is archived)