It is a 3rd party report and I have no idea why it’s named this way. For anyone in media or government or dominion to suggest there’s no basis for what Powell claims is ridiculous. It’s been a issue for a long time.
The problem is that for any issue one can always find an expert that will agree with them. Covid, climate change and so on.
So Powell shows affidavits from experts saying it is likely there was a fraud. Dominion and Biden show experts that will tell NY Times Data feed is not reliable, and the results while unlikely are not impossible.
Decide one way or the other... that’s what courts do. For dominion and the media to say this is unfounded or out of no where is a total lie. If a reasonable person hears “this has never happened” and I show them it happened yesterday, what should they do?
MI case is a good example. Mr Kallman asked for an injunction, to put certification on hold to be able to audit results to check for any irregularities.
And the court said: no, but you can go ahead and file a fraud case if you have evidence to prove it.
It is not likely courts throw out election results because of NY Times data feed, unfortunately.
On a contrary, since a judge that would flip a state from Biden to Trump would instantly become a new target of a worldwide hate mob, a wise judge will only rule for Trump if he’s presented with hard fraud evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way.
In PA, judges changed election laws, not legislators. The change allowed additional ballots to be cast after polls closed. Even if those votes are real, they're illegally cast per the law. That's how I understand it at least. Is there another way to interpret that?
I would like to ask them if donating and sponsoring mostly democrats is considered "non-partisan"? Also, why did Dominion choose a building in Toronto to be the tenant of that is next to the most liberal policy focused political activist businesses in the city and some of the people from those other businesses also worked at Dominion?
In 2006, John Bonifaz ran for the Democratic nomination to be Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006 against incumbent William F. Galvin. He declared his candidacy on December 1, 2005,[12] before it was known whether Galvin would run for re-election or for governor. Galvin won the primary election, which was held on September 19, 2006.
If they were so confident they would have testified in Pennsylvania instead of pulling out at the last minute
Buhh buhhh BINGOOOO
This is a document submitted by a third party (VoterAction), not a report by NIST
It is a 3rd party report and I have no idea why it’s named this way. For anyone in media or government or dominion to suggest there’s no basis for what Powell claims is ridiculous. It’s been a issue for a long time.
The problem is that for any issue one can always find an expert that will agree with them. Covid, climate change and so on.
So Powell shows affidavits from experts saying it is likely there was a fraud. Dominion and Biden show experts that will tell NY Times Data feed is not reliable, and the results while unlikely are not impossible.
And what is the court supposed to do?
Decide one way or the other... that’s what courts do. For dominion and the media to say this is unfounded or out of no where is a total lie. If a reasonable person hears “this has never happened” and I show them it happened yesterday, what should they do?
MI case is a good example. Mr Kallman asked for an injunction, to put certification on hold to be able to audit results to check for any irregularities.
And the court said: no, but you can go ahead and file a fraud case if you have evidence to prove it.
It is not likely courts throw out election results because of NY Times data feed, unfortunately.
A wise judge will fall on the side of highest probability. Case closed.
That’s not what has been happening so far.
On a contrary, since a judge that would flip a state from Biden to Trump would instantly become a new target of a worldwide hate mob, a wise judge will only rule for Trump if he’s presented with hard fraud evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way.
In PA, judges changed election laws, not legislators. The change allowed additional ballots to be cast after polls closed. Even if those votes are real, they're illegally cast per the law. That's how I understand it at least. Is there another way to interpret that?
Have a brain and then use it?
Send this to Powell if she doesnt have it already
Appreciate it
Archive it before it is pulled.
Would be ironic if this lead makes Sidney's case even stronger.
DONE
https://archive.is/wRJOg
For the statements Dominion made: https://www.dominionvoting.com/dominion-statement-on-sidney-powell-charges/
They may try to change them so run them through archive.today to find older versions of that page.
I would like to ask them if donating and sponsoring mostly democrats is considered "non-partisan"? Also, why did Dominion choose a building in Toronto to be the tenant of that is next to the most liberal policy focused political activist businesses in the city and some of the people from those other businesses also worked at Dominion?
In 2006, John Bonifaz ran for the Democratic nomination to be Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006 against incumbent William F. Galvin. He declared his candidacy on December 1, 2005,[12] before it was known whether Galvin would run for re-election or for governor. Galvin won the primary election, which was held on September 19, 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bonifaz
Jesus
Hahahahaha... you can’t make this stuff up.
Great catch pede!
It’s incredibly weird for NIST to have anything related to voting machines.
And Drafted by a Democrat "John C. Bonifaz" None the less.