Proof of the election fraud

[Vol Main]

Where is your proof on this? Far more common. I think there is at best, equal amounts on both sides.

A lot of evidence appeared in regional newspapers which did not appear in the national media or the trial. But the evidence in the trial disproved the lynch mob narrative. My experience with responding to such questions on this forum aand other places is that it is a waste of my time. The short answer is that the proof is in the trial transcript.

 

[Vol Main]

Maybe you don’t but you do realize that joe and most of the Dems that were voted for, do. ( hate America). And, if you voted for them, you either don’t care about their views or you feel the same way. The WV Senator may be the only middle of the road dem but he still votes for radical ideas. What does that say about him?

I may be wrong and I’m not going back to check because it’s not worth my time. You have been calling Trump supporters crazy, idiots and whatever else has been said. But refuse to have a real conversation.

I don't think Biden hates America. He loves this country. I do not want to even think about all of the times I've tried to have a real conversation on this board and watched the work in my posts replied to with little better than knee jerk negativity and middle school insults. That is not my idea of conversation.

 

[VolinWayne]

I don't think Biden hates America. He loves this country. I do not want to even think about all of the times I've tried to have a real conversation on this board and watched the work in my posts replied to with little better than knee jerk negativity and middle school insults. That is not my idea of conversation.

While I don't really agree with you on Biden (I personally think he is only in politics for the money and he's as corrupt as they come) I do appreciate you wanting to have real conversations. I apologize if I came across as attacking you? I appreciate people who are open to real conversations. I personally believe there was wide spread fraud in this past election which is why I post what I feel like is evidence in this election fraud thread. I don't expect everybody else to believe exactly like me but I want others to see the allegations and make up their own minds on what happened this past election.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Just how badly were the electoral vote counts “cooked” in Georgia? According to this mathematician, the odds of the precise outcome pattern described in this video, which persisted for 90-minute intervals on a rotating basis in precinct after precinct in Fulton County, are “one over ten to an exponent so large that there are not enough stars in the universe, there are not enough atoms in the universe to explain the number. It can’t happen naturally.” In short, these results can only be achieved by deliberate, algorithmic manipulation. See .

For a much lengthier presentation of Solomon’s mathematical analysis of broad-based algorithmic manipulation of election results, see . Think what you will of Alex Jones, the host, but Solomon’s presentation of how this process worked is most impressive. For Democrats who otherwise may be uninterested, Solomon discovered that similar algorithmic manipulation was used to torpedo the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, but he does not cover that in detail.

 

[Vol Main]

Solomon says that the numbers did not come in naturally. Well, that's right. Mail-in ballots are opened and separated, then entered in batches, which makes the count appear quirky. I pencil whip numbers in certain counties for hours on election nights, observe trends, compare them with polls and past election trends, to make outcome estimates. I'm talking about basic algebra. For a number of reasons, vote counts do not move in a straight line. Whatever this guy is talking about, he needs to share his procedures with the people who know what actually happens during the vote count. He is trying to make the count conform to his own models, and the procedures used in his models might not accord with the procedures used in the vote counting rooms. The Election Commission counted those votes numerous times, including hand counts. One guy coming along saying that the count does not make sense is not a valid reason to doubt the certified results.

 

[hUTch2002]

You are missing the point. That had already been adjudicated. Lawsuits had been filed in states such as Pennsylvania, retroactively challenging the expansion of mail-in voting as being unconstitutional. Those suits were dismissed by the respective State Supreme Courts.

Assuming these sentences in bold are true, that doesn't make what Hawley and Cruz did right. On Wednesday January 6th, there was no longer a path to victory for Donald Trump. The electoral college had already met over 3 weeks earlier and they had cast their votes. The recounts and even hand recounts were over. The State Supreme Courts had made their rulings, and the Supreme Court of the United States had declined to get involved. The election was over. And yet, there was Hawley and Cruz grandstanding for Trump supporters to see who could be the first bootlicker to kiss the ring of dear leader. They knew the results could not be overturned at that point. They persisted with a vote to object to the electoral college count, and they made horse's asses of themselves just before a riot, by pandering to the very people who would be engaging in the riot. It was reckless and irresponsible... and they knew better.

Listen, I agree it’s over and I think it was more Dems outmaneuvered Reps than “cheated”. Do I think PA went around their constitution? I do but Dems got it done and Reps didn’t do anything about it. In fact, you reference the PA court dismissing the suit and, if I recall correctly, it wasn’t because the argument didn’t have merit. It was because the timing was suspect. The court said why now when you had plenty of time before? Reps sat on it too long and it was a bad strategy.

As far as Hawley and others challenging electorates, Trump’s lawyers showed several Dems doing the exact same thing previously and the ones they showed knew they didn’t have the signatures required and did it anyway so you acting like Hawley and others did something unique and unusual is incorrect. They all do it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Listen, I agree it’s over and I think it was more Dems outmaneuvered Reps than “cheated”. Do I think PA went around their constitution? I do but Dems got it done and Reps didn’t do anything about it. In fact, you reference the PA court dismissing the suit and, if I recall correctly, it wasn’t because the argument didn’t have merit. It was because the timing was suspect. The court said why now when you had plenty of time before? Reps sat on it too long and it was a bad strategy.

As far as Hawley and others challenging electorates, Trump’s lawyers showed several Dems doing the exact same thing previously and the ones they showed knew they didn’t have the signatures required and did it anyway so you acting like Hawley and others did something unique and unusual is incorrect. They all do it.

It doesn't have to be "unique" or "unusual" to be the wrong thing to do. Sure, there is room for some more "what-about-ism". There is almost always room for it. That is basically the only defense that the Trump legal team has put forth in this trial... except that it's not a defense.

The bigger point as far as the riot is concerned, is that Donald Trump continued to suggest to his supporters that he still had a chance to overturn the election results after Monday December 14th when the electoral college met to cast their votes. There was no longer a way to do that while staying within the framework of the United States Constitution. I understand that Trump is not an attorney, but I'm sure that Pat Cippolone was conveying the message to him that it was over. If Mike Pence had done what Trump wanted and not counted votes from the electors who were chosen, what was next? Trump didn't have a plan for what that would even mean if it had happened. Trump could no longer win... and yet, there was Trump on January 6th, questioning his own Vice President's loyalty and courage because Pence wouldn't do something the United States Constitution didn't allow for him to do.

 

[hUTch2002]

It doesn't have to be "unique" or "unusual" to be the wrong thing to do. Sure, there is room for some more "what-about-ism". There is almost always room for it. That is basically the only defense that the Trump legal team has put forth in this trial... except that it's not a defense.

The bigger point as far as the riot is concerned, is that Donald Trump continued to suggest to his supporters that he still had a chance to overturn the election results after Monday December 14th when the electoral college met to cast their votes. There was no longer a way to do that while staying within the framework of the United States Constitution. I understand that Trump is not an attorney, but I'm sure that Pat Cippolone was conveying the message to him that it was over. If Mike Pence had done what Trump wanted and not counted votes from the electors who were chosen, what was next? Trump didn't have a plan for what that would even mean if it had happened. Trump could no longer win... and yet, there was Trump on January 6th, questioning his own Vice President's loyalty and courage because Pence wouldn't do something the United States Constitution didn't allow for him to do.

I agree that being regular doesn’t make it right but Dems have tried to make it sound like Hawley and the others were doing something that was irregular when that isn’t true. Of course we saw that kind of strategy from the House Impeachment managers too. And you say Trump’s only defense was whataboutism? First, you’re wrong. You must’ve missed the whole presentation on First Amendment precedence from cases such as Bond vs Floyd. Second, I think the response showing hypocrisy among Dems when they’re trying to make it sound like Trump did something so unusual as to cause an impeachment conviction was quite appropriate. Impeachment shouldn’t happen for regular activities. They showed that what Trump did was typical political activity. How in the world would that not be a valid defense?

 

[BowlBrother85]

I agree that being regular doesn’t make it right but Dems have tried to make it sound like Hawley and the others were doing something that was irregular when that isn’t true. Of course we saw that kind of strategy from the House Impeachment managers too. And you say Trump’s only defense was whataboutism? First, you’re wrong. You must’ve missed the whole presentation on First Amendment precedence from cases such as Bond vs Floyd. Second, I think the response showing hypocrisy among Dems when they’re trying to make it sound like Trump did something so unusual as to cause an impeachment conviction was quite appropriate. Impeachment shouldn’t happen for regular activities. They showed that what Trump did was typical political activity. How in the world would that not be a valid defense?

That is absolutely ridiculous. What Donald Trump did was definitely NOT typical political activity. Donald Trump was (in complete defiance of the United States Constitution) trying to subvert the democratic system of elections in this country. Donald Trump is the only sitting U.S. President to ever publicly call on his Vice President to disregard the vote of electors who were legally chosen within their state's Constitutions, by way of the popular vote from the presidential election in their respective states.... and then (absurdly) count votes from a different set of electors that the party in power has handpicked. The United States Constitution does not grant the Vice President such unilateral power, nor should it. Why have an election in the first place, if the VP gets to choose whether or not he is re-elected?

It is worth noting that Al Gore counted the electoral college votes on January 6, 2001 which certified his own defeat. As a sitting President who just lost his re-election bid, Donald Trump is very much alone in his conduct between election day and his successor's inauguration. This can not be allowed to become established precedent for future Presidents to follow after they lose re-election.

 

[hUTch2002]

How about Time magazine laying out how they manipulated all social media through disinformation and censorship, had over 400 million dollars to spend making sure Trump couldnt win....then bookface leader Zuckerberg gave them another 300 million because the half a billion they had wasnt gonna be enough to change all the state laws, censor conservatives at every turn, feed the complicit media MSM all of their talking points.....it is endless.


The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election



Crooked thieves....warning to the sane adults here, this is of course amazingly slanted liberal drivel....but it is also damning evidence of the billions of $ spent to make sure Trump didnt win, and the many groups behind it .

I’ll be curious to read how others responded as I haven’t done so yet. My response would be that I hate it happened, I think it’s ridiculous they went to that length over Trump, but it was within their rights. That’s why I say Trump and the Reps simply got outmaneuvered. COVID certainly isn’t fake but it was the perfect cover to run their operation against Trump. Without that virus I have no doubt Trump is re-elected and it has nothing to do with his response to it.

 

[hUTch2002]

Trump supporters have insisted over the last four years on this forum that a coordinated social media effort (Russian-based disinformation and propaganda) in favor of one candidate over another, could not possibly sway enough votes to change the outcome of a presidential election. Your whining is a little hard to sympathize with in light of that.

I think the change in mail in voting rules was the main driver. Yes Reps could’ve taken advantage too but they didn’t.

 

[hUTch2002]

I recall the Russian Collusion Delusion very well. The 2 are not even comparable. Look at what's happening now.

1. Mainstream media refuses to cover anything that doesn't fit their agenda. There was very little coverage of the Biden corruption. Many Americans that voted for Biden did not even know about the Biden's ties to China because the media completely hid this

2. It's quite obvious how Google has suppressed opposing views

3. Facebook and Twitter have been deleting any and all opposing views. They are deleting hard facts and everything having to do with election integrity. Basically anybody who questions the results of this past election are labeled as right wing conspiracy theorists. I could go on and on here

What actually pisses me off more than Dems taking advantage of this is Reps stood by and watched Dems build this ability and either did nothing or were complicit in building it. Most Reps are no different than the Dems. They just have different views on a few key things, at least in public. But when the rubber meet the road they won’t potentially upset their cushy life and political empire over something as pliable as their “values”.

 

[hUTch2002]

That is absolutely ridiculous. What Donald Trump did was definitely NOT typical political activity. Donald Trump was (in complete defiance of the United States Constitution) trying to subvert the democratic system of elections in this country. Donald Trump is the only sitting U.S. President to ever publicly call on his Vice President to disregard the vote of electors who were legally chosen within their state's Constitutions, by way of the popular vote from the presidential election in their respective states.... and then (absurdly) count votes from a different set of electors that the party in power has handpicked. The United States Constitution does not grant the Vice President such unilateral power, nor should it. Why have an election in the first place, if the VP gets to choose whether or not he is re-elected?

It is worth noting that Al Gore counted the electoral college votes on January 6, 2001 which certified his own defeat. As a sitting President who just lost his re-election bid, Donald Trump is very much alone in his conduct between election day and his successor's inauguration. This can not be allowed to become established precedent for future Presidents to follow after they lose re-election.

I’m talking about the impeachment charade. What Dems are calling “incitement of insurrection” is nothing more than typical political rhetoric.

 

[hUTch2002]

That is absolutely ridiculous. What Donald Trump did was definitely NOT typical political activity. Donald Trump was (in complete defiance of the United States Constitution) trying to subvert the democratic system of elections in this country. Donald Trump is the only sitting U.S. President to ever publicly call on his Vice President to disregard the vote of electors who were legally chosen within their state's Constitutions, by way of the popular vote from the presidential election in their respective states.... and then (absurdly) count votes from a different set of electors that the party in power has handpicked. The United States Constitution does not grant the Vice President such unilateral power, nor should it. Why have an election in the first place, if the VP gets to choose whether or not he is re-elected?

It is worth noting that Al Gore counted the electoral college votes on January 6, 2001 which certified his own defeat. As a sitting President who just lost his re-election bid, Donald Trump is very much alone in his conduct between election day and his successor's inauguration. This can not be allowed to become established precedent for future Presidents to follow after they lose re-election.

I take it no response to Trump’s lawyers using First Amendment precedence in defense? You said it was all whataboutism, I proved you wrong, and you skipped right over that part.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I’m talking about the impeachment charade. What Dems are calling “incitement of insurrection” is nothing more than typical political rhetoric.

"typical political rhetoric" isn't typically followed by a riot. That makes a difference. Why was Trump specifically calling out Mike Pence? What did he want that crowd to do, if it wasn't to storm the Capitol and look for Pence?

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Solomon says that the numbers did not come in naturally. Well, that's right. Mail-in ballots are opened and separated, then entered in batches, which makes the count appear quirky. I pencil whip numbers in certain counties for hours on election nights, observe trends, compare them with polls and past election trends, to make outcome estimates. I'm talking about basic algebra. For a number of reasons, vote counts do not move in a straight line. Whatever this guy is talking about, he needs to share his procedures with the people who know what actually happens during the vote count. He is trying to make the count conform to his own models, and the procedures used in his models might not accord with the procedures used in the vote counting rooms. The Election Commission counted those votes numerous times, including hand counts. One guy coming along saying that the count does not make sense is not a valid reason to doubt the certified results.

Higher math is not particularly interesting to me, nor is it a personal forte, but, if you really want to dive into and critique Solomon’s methodology, you should find plenty of “meat and potatoes” in his evidentiary papers on election results at the precinct level from Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Those papers are accessible from Expert Edward Solomon's Analysis of 2020 Election Shows Thousands of Ballots Switched from Trump In States He Won (MI, GA, PA) to Biden - Enough to Steal the Election.

Incidentally, Solomon states within the Pennsylvania evidentiary paper () that, “for the purposes of this affidavit, a ratio is the quotient of two integers. For example, if President Trump received 47 of the votes and Vice President Biden received 247 votes that would be a ratio of 47:247 or 47/247. If this ratio would occur one... or even two times…it would not raise suspicion; however, were the ratio to occur in multiple precincts simultaneously, or within one Timestamp of each other, then, in accordance with the Geometric Law of the Sum of Inverse Squares and the Distributions of Totatives to a Common Modulus, the count of irreducible ratios rapidly converges on 3x 2 /�� 2, a result proven by Euler in the Year of our Lord 1735. As such, the chance of precincts transferring exact integers ratios amongst each other within a single timestamp is a highly improbable event, let alone when they take on the same ratio simultaneously. Furthermore, since each of these events are just as improbable, an entire series of such events is all but impossible.”

If you have the expertise to shred his conclusions or methodological approach to analysis, we would welcome your insight. Somehow, I suspect that your colleagues would prefer to simply dismiss this data and the resulting conclusions out of hand rather than challenge their own premises.

 

[hUTch2002]

"typical political rhetoric" isn't typically followed by a riot. That makes a difference. Why was Trump specifically calling out Mike Pence? What did he want that crowd to do, if it wasn't to storm the Capitol and look for Pence?

He said it in his speech if you bothered to actually listen to the whole thing. He said to go cheer on the Senators in a peaceful and patriotic manner. How about this? If Obama had said the exact same words and the exact same thing happened would Dems be calling for his impeachment? Of course not! That’s how you know it shouldn’t happen now.

 

[hUTch2002]

[VIDEO=][/VIDEO]

Facebook and Twitter have been deleting unsubstantiated claims of fraud. During the 2016 presidential campaign they allowed the vast majority of disinformation to stand. They took corrective measures this time around. Good for them.

Fine. Then they no longer get legal protections as a platform.

 

[VolinWayne]

Higher math is not particularly interesting to me, nor is it a personal forte, but, if you really want to dive into and critique Solomon’s methodology, you should find plenty of “meat and potatoes” in his evidentiary papers on election results at the precinct level from Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Those papers are accessible from Expert Edward Solomon's Analysis of 2020 Election Shows Thousands of Ballots Switched from Trump In States He Won (MI, GA, PA) to Biden - Enough to Steal the Election.

Incidentally, Solomon states within the Pennsylvania evidentiary paper () that, “for the purposes of this affidavit, a ratio is the quotient of two integers. For example, if President Trump received 47 of the votes and Vice President Biden received 247 votes that would be a ratio of 47:247 or 47/247. If this ratio would occur one... or even two times…it would not raise suspicion; however, were the ratio to occur in multiple precincts simultaneously, or within one Timestamp of each other, then, in accordance with the Geometric Law of the Sum of Inverse Squares and the Distributions of Totatives to a Common Modulus, the count of irreducible ratios rapidly converges on 3x 2 /�� 2, a result proven by Euler in the Year of our Lord 1735. As such, the chance of precincts transferring exact integers ratios amongst each other within a single timestamp is a highly improbable event, let alone when they take on the same ratio simultaneously. Furthermore, since each of these events are just as improbable, an entire series of such events is all but impossible.”

If you have the expertise to shred his conclusions or methodological approach to analysis, we would welcome your insight. Somehow, I suspect that your colleagues would prefer to simply dismiss this data and the resulting conclusions out of hand rather than challenge their own premises.

Very good analysis. I feel like there are so many different claims out there that the majority of people are just completely dismissing everything as conspiracy without actually looking at the data presented.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Very good analysis. I feel like there are so many different claims out there that the majority of people are just completely dismissing everything as conspiracy without actually looking at the data presented.

Yes, it is always easier to dismiss opposing perspectives as unworthy of further consideration than it is to be willing to challenge one’s own premises and fundamentally change one’s opinion based on exposure to compelling new data and theoretical paradigms.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yes, it is always easier to dismiss opposing perspectives as unworthy of further consideration than it is to be willing to challenge one’s own premises and fundamentally change one’s opinion based on exposure to compelling new data and theoretical paradigms.

It is always easier to dismiss allegations of voter fraud/cheating when such claims are made on either the internet or on cable news shows, but then never argued in a court of law. That is the point (in a court) where a theory or an allegation is put to a practical test (not in a thesis). The fundamental problem for those of you who wish to believe that Trump was cheated, is simply this: When they were given an opportunity to allege fraud in court and present evidence to a judge in support of this alleged fraud - attorneys representing the 2020 Trump Campaign declined to do so.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

It is always easier to dismiss allegations of voter fraud/cheating when such claims are made on either the internet or on cable news shows, but then never argued in a court of law. That is the point (in a court) where a theory or an allegation is put to a practical test (not in a thesis). The fundamental problem for those of you who wish to believe that Trump was cheated, is simply this: When they were given an opportunity to allege fraud in court and present evidence to a judge in support of this alleged fraud - attorneys representing the 2020 Trump Campaign declined to do so.

If you adhere to the belief that verdicts rendered by Lady Justice remain “blind,” as opposed to frequently being ideologically driven, I’m afraid that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

However, if you want to go down that road, I presume that you are aware that “[Of] the 80 total lawsuits, 34 have either been withdrawn, consolidated with other suits, or dismissed due to legal technicalities such as lack of standing, timing, or jurisdiction. Those judges who dismissed suits never heard the actual evidence of election irregularities and/or fraud, since they did not allow it to be presented in their courtrooms. . . . If anything, [such cases] are evidence of a failure of our judicial system to – at a moment of national crisis – actually address election fraud.

Of the 46 remaining lawsuits, 25 cases are still ongoing, so that the winner and loser of these cases is yet to be determined, while 21 have been completely adjudicated. These are cases where the court heard arguments, considered any relevant evidence, and then issued a formal ruling on the merits.

[Of] these 21 cases, Trump has won 14 and lost 7. In other words, Trump has won two-thirds of the cases to date that have been adjudicated by the courts. Don’t expect to hear this on the evening news.” Trump is winning election lawsuits, in case you haven’t heard and http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

 

[BowlBrother85]

If you still adhere to the belief that Lady Justice remains “blind,” as opposed to frequently being ideologically driven, I’m afraid that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

However, if you want to go down that road, I presume that you are aware that “[Of] the 80 total lawsuits, 34 have either been withdrawn, consolidated with other suits, or dismissed due to legal technicalities such as lack of standing, timing, or jurisdiction. Those judges who dismissed suits never heard the actual evidence of election irregularities and/or fraud, since they did not allow it to be presented in their courtrooms. . . . If anything, [such cases] are evidence of a failure of our judicial system to – at a moment of national crisis – actually address election fraud.

Of the 46 remaining lawsuits, 25 cases are still ongoing, so that the winner and loser of these cases is yet to be determined, while 21 have been completely adjudicated. These are cases where the court heard arguments, considered any relevant evidence, and then issued a formal ruling on the merits.

[Of] these 21 cases, Trump has won 14 and lost 7. In other words, Trump has won two-thirds of the cases to date that have been adjudicated by the courts. Don’t expect to hear this on the evening news.” Trump is winning election lawsuits, in case you haven’t heard and http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm

This language was included in a ruling against the 2020 Trump Campaign from Judge Stephanos Bibas, of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania, a Donald Trump appointee no less:

From November 27, 2020

"First, for the reasons already given, the Campaign is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Second, it shows no irreparable harm, offering specific challenges to many fewer ballots than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. Third, the Campaign is responsible for its delay and repetitive litigation. Finally, the public interest strongly favors finality, counting every lawful voter's vote, and not disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail. Plus, discarding those votes could disrupt every other election on the ballot."

and....

"The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require allegations and the proof. We have neither here."

-- Judge Stephanos Bibas, Third Circuit Court of Appeals (and a Trump appointee)

****************************************

You are delusional. The Trump Campaign's lawsuits have gone nowhere. They have failed on their merits... as well as on lack of standing. They have failed before Trump's own appointees. They have just plain failed. Trump lost. It makes no difference whether you want to live in denial or face reality. Your delusions will not alter reality.

 

[Vol Main]

Higher math is not particularly interesting to me, nor is it a personal forte, but, if you really want to dive into and critique Solomon’s methodology, you should find plenty of “meat and potatoes” in his evidentiary papers on election results at the precinct level from Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Those papers are accessible from Expert Edward Solomon's Analysis of 2020 Election Shows Thousands of Ballots Switched from Trump In States He Won (MI, GA, PA) to Biden - Enough to Steal the Election.

Incidentally, Solomon states within the Pennsylvania evidentiary paper () that, “for the purposes of this affidavit, a ratio is the quotient of two integers. For example, if President Trump received 47 of the votes and Vice President Biden received 247 votes that would be a ratio of 47:247 or 47/247. If this ratio would occur one... or even two times…it would not raise suspicion; however, were the ratio to occur in multiple precincts simultaneously, or within one Timestamp of each other, then, in accordance with the Geometric Law of the Sum of Inverse Squares and the Distributions of Totatives to a Common Modulus, the count of irreducible ratios rapidly converges on 3x 2 /�� 2, a result proven by Euler in the Year of our Lord 1735. As such, the chance of precincts transferring exact integers ratios amongst each other within a single timestamp is a highly improbable event, let alone when they take on the same ratio simultaneously. Furthermore, since each of these events are just as improbable, an entire series of such events is all but impossible.”

If you have the expertise to shred his conclusions or methodological approach to analysis, we would welcome your insight. Somehow, I suspect that your colleagues would prefer to simply dismiss this data and the resulting conclusions out of hand rather than challenge their own premises.

I think it appropriate for his work to be competently reviewed by those most familiar with both the actual processes and his math, to properly compare and contrast them. I am neither, so unless and until that is done, I will not put much stock in his methods and conclusions.

 

[clarksvol00]

It’s one thing to say that you think states like PA changed their laws in a manner inconsistent with their state constitution and try to follow that path towards fighting the election results (which failed, I know) but Powell was slinging some pretty crazy sh1t out there that was a whole other level of contesting the results. How can you possibly throw something like that out without having rock solid proof? The constitutional argument is based on an interpretation of a document. What she was throwing out is either there or it isn’t. That’s what makes her claim so puzzling. Like BB said, with the lawsuits happening we will get to find out but I’m feeling pretty darn sure Powell isn’t going to like where this ends up and I’m someone that did vote for Trump.

I admittedly didn't vote for Trump, but I could have been more open-minded to claims of election fraud if the lead allegations had not been super secret servers, ferraris full of ballots, and that crazy lady in Michigan.