UPDATE! NewsChannel3 Responds After Posting Results to Primary Election (One Week Early)

Wow!

Perhaps there’s something more at play here or perhaps we are not understanding what we’re looking at, but we double checked the reporting and we saw the exact same thing.

In the event that page gets taken down or replaced by the time you read this, here’s what we saw as of press time:

From Rumble:

Again we go back to TheGatewayPundit for the update:

When asked about his race being influenced by premature and inaccurate results, Tom Norton, running for US House District 2, said, “I hope this is them stress testing the reporting system. The press has a constitutional duty to be fair and balanced, yet sadly, we all know they have joined the likes of Goebbels-style disinformation. 2.6 million Americans have died for the right to vote to be protected. Any election fraud at any level is unacceptable.”

This begs the question “Does this constitute election influence?” Does publishing results of a race a week before the election and without any disclaimer letting people know that these are in no way actual numbers influence people to either not show up or show up more for a particular candidate? And who is responsible?

Last night, New Channel 3 WWMT TV, when asked how the results for the primary were published responded shockingly:

“Thank you for your concern. Our apologies. We have been testing our systems with the Associated Press. The numbers you are seeing are not actual results. (Thanks…now notate that ON the page!) We have cleared the numbers. The actual primary results will populate after the polls close on Tuesday, Aug. 2”

Michigan Statute 168.932 states:

“A person who violates 1 or more of the following subdivisions is guilty of a felony:

(a) A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.

So once again, is publishing results of an election a week before considered “directly or directly…influencing an elector in giving their vote or deterring from”?

Ironically, we saw the same thing in Georgia in their primary race. VoterGA pointed out on May 16, 2022, 8 days before the election, and once again orchestrated by the Associated Press. WSB News Director Suzanne Nadell explained that they did not expect the results to published live.

Why is it that the two controversial swing states with still scrutinized results, procedures and records retention are the ones that made the mistake of publishing results without disclaimers letting electors know these are not symbolic of any particular voting?

Why are the results released in Michigan predominantly GOP races with only a handful of lower ticket democrat races published?

How is this data determined and why was it made public or “live”?