He could have provided a credible “debunk” of some of the election fraud claims. Here’s why he failed:
His tone was intentionally and purposefully anti-Trump. He somehow believes the WaPo hype about a phone call in which the full audio, to me, only reveals a list of claims from a legal team trying to get answers from the state offices. I wasn’t even a Trump voter, but I’d like straight answers, and this is clearly a biased actor.
He does credibly debunk some fraud claims, but I notice he only attacks the weakest ones. Is he familiar with the straw man fallacy?
There is no mention of the extraordinarily large number of adjudicated ballots. The existing claim, complete with video demonstration, is that ballot images are actually replaced during this process. This makes recounts worthless, and relies on the “honor system” alone to protect mass quantities of votes that can be amended with a few mouse clicks. Is this true? I don’t know, but I didn’t hear him touch the issue.
Trump’s lawyers are advocates. Of course they put a spin on the State Farm video. But I noticed that his “debunked” version of events completely agrees with the basic facts. Afterhours counting DID occur, and it occurred in the absence of press, poll watchers, and regular public observation. I feel this guy is not taking that seriously. He could at least admit, “it looks bad,” but he’s barely trying. What an insult.
He NEVER addresses, in my observation, the data team’s claims of decremented votes. If those claims are true, the GA election must be thrown out. Where’s the debunk?
Bipartisan groups (Carter/Baker) and decades of election observation have many well-informed critics to conclude that mailed ballots are especially susceptible to fraud. What kind of fraud is most likely to plague mailed ballots, and what checks were done against it? I noted he never drilled down on specific aspects of the 2020 election that concern most people. He just had a random list of the wildest claims scribbled down (see “straw men”) and acted like everything’s cool because Patrick Byrne tweeted something off-base. What a joke.
The enumerated lists of illegal votes appeared to be sourced either from one of Trump’s lawyers or from Trump himself on his phone call. I think Trump has a decent grasp of the situation, but he’s not a data analyst and I would hope is making bigger-picture decisions. In the process of “debunking” those numbers, he simply asserted that the number was “0” in many cases. Meanwhile, there was no discernible challenge to the Braynard data, which was similar, but came attached with sworn statements (as I understand), and published, checkable, provable cases of fraud. Are those numbers also “0”? I am seeing a pattern of avoiding the strongest claims. Additionally, the claim the all PO boxes were investigated and determined legitimate appears to be flatly false. I’ve seen for myself that mapping services prove out at least some of the Braynard claims. I saw a credible debunk of some of his data from another analyst on Tweetster. The “debunk” was of approximately 13% of the set examined. Even if such a challenge held, it leaves 87% potential fraud. Not 0.
If the Stacy Abrams machine flooded the system with technically legal votes, and it really flipped GA, then... OK.
But it looks to me like fraud did it.
When your election has mailed ballots en masse, involves “stopping the count” like a third-world country, has large numbers of adjudicated ballots, and takes weeks to complete, you put yourself in a bad situation, and are responsible to prove that the process was fair. Personally, I would at least be swayed by a credible debunk. This isn’t it.
He could have provided a credible “debunk” of some of the election fraud claims. Here’s why he failed:
His tone was intentionally and purposefully anti-Trump. He somehow believes the WaPo hype about a phone call in which the full audio, to me, only reveals a list of claims from a legal team trying to get answers from the state offices. I wasn’t even a Trump voter, but I’d like straight answers, and this is clearly a biased actor.
He does credibly debunk some fraud claims, but I notice he only attacks the weakest ones. Is he familiar with the straw man fallacy?
There is no mention of the extraordinarily large number of adjudicated ballots. The existing claim, complete with video demonstration, is that ballot images are actually replaced during this process. This makes recounts worthless, and relies on the “honor system” alone to protect mass quantities of votes that can be amended with a few mouse clicks. Is this true? I don’t know, but I didn’t hear him touch the issue.
Trump’s lawyers are advocates. Of course they put a spin on the State Farm video. But I noticed that his “debunked” version of events completely agrees with the basic facts. Afterhours counting DID occur, and it occurred in the absence of press, poll watchers, and regular public observation. I feel this guy is not taking that seriously. He could at least admit, “it looks bad,” but he’s barely trying. What an insult.
He NEVER addresses, in my observation, the data team’s claims of decremented votes. If those claims are true, the GA election must be thrown out. Where’s the debunk?
Bipartisan groups (Carter/Baker) and decades of election observation have many well-informed critics to conclude that mailed ballots are especially susceptible to fraud. What kind of fraud is most likely to plague mailed ballots, and what checks were done against it? I noted he never drilled down on specific aspects of the 2020 election that concern most people. He just had a random list of the wildest claims scribbled down (see “straw men”) and acted like everything’s cool because Patrick Byrne tweeted something off-base. What a joke.
The enumerated lists of illegal votes appeared to be sourced either from one of Trump’s lawyers or from Trump himself on his phone call. I think Trump has a decent grasp of the situation, but he’s not a data analyst and I would hope is making bigger-picture decisions. In the process of “debunking” those numbers, he simply asserted that the number was “0” in many cases. Meanwhile, there was no discernible challenge to the Braynard data, which was similar, but came attached with sworn statements (as I understand), and published, checkable, provable cases of fraud. Are those numbers also “0”? I am seeing a pattern of avoiding the strongest claims. Additionally, the claim the all PO boxes were investigated and determined legitimate appears to be flatly false. I’ve seen for myself that mapping services prove out at least some of the Braynard claims. I saw a credible debunk of some of his data from another analyst on Tweetster. The “debunk” was of approximately 13% of the set examined. Even if such a challenge held, it leaves 87% potential fraud. Not 0.
If the Stacy Abrams machine flooded the system with technically legal votes, and it really flipped GA, then... OK.
But it looks to me like fraud did it.
When your election has mailed ballots en masse, involves “stopping the count” like a third-world country, has large numbers of adjudicated ballots, and takes weeks to complete, you put yourself in a bad situation, and are responsible to prove that the process was fair. Personally, I would at least be swayed by a credible debunk. This isn’t it.