[kurikuri]

> An insider observing a simple way for a bad actor to gain access to voting machine hardware is evidence.

Is evidence of what? She abused her elected position to pursue a conspiracy theory and no evidence of that conspiracy was discovered. She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials. She, a person who was supposed to protect the integrity of the election as part of being a clerk and recorder in her county, betrayed her public office and the people who elected her.

There is no ‘blatant double standard’ here. Instead, you’ve drawn a false analogy to other situations to make this seem like something it wasn’t. Even if we were charitable and said the ends justify the means, there were no justifying ends that came about.

[nyokodo]

> She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials.

A single insider shouldn't be able to potentially undermine the voting in an entire jurisdiction and, depending on the vulnerability, multiple jurisdictions. That is a massive vulnerability revealed by the fact that she was able to do it. No single person should be able to undermine our voting system and she knew they could and then demonstrated it. It is illegal and she should answer for the way she revealed the vulnerability but then I think Julian Assange and Edward Snowden should have been tried and jailed long ago for their unethical and irresponsible disclosures too, so I'm not a hypocrite.