He could have provided a credible “debunk” of some of the election fraud claims. Here’s why he failed:

1. 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.

2. He does credibly debunk some fraud claims, but I notice he only attacks the weakest ones. Is he familiar with the straw man fallacy?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. Bipartisan groups (Carter/Baker) and decades of election observation have led 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.

7. 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, his claim that all PO boxes were investigated and determined legitimate appears 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 Braynard data from another analyst on Tweetster. But the “debunk” was of approximately 13% of the set examined, to my recollection. 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:

1. 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.

2. He does credibly debunk some fraud claims, but I notice he only attacks the weakest ones. Is he familiar with the straw man fallacy?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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 directly states that every vote was counted, and will count.

Presumably this includes any and all illegal ballots.

Time to replace this guy with someone who understands a Venn diagram. Regardless of political party; he doesn’t even have the decency to lie and say they excluded illegal ballots.

Is Tasha embarrassed by her own tweet?

Or does she think mortify = horrify?

Yup.

Listened to the whole “leaked” call.

I missed the part where anyone called out defamation or made any challenge to Trump’s statement.

So all parties agree that a professional hustler and vote scammer was scanning ballots after hours, in a locked facility, with no observation by press or poll watchers.

Right?

She’s right. Comparing this to 2018 really is “apples to bowling balls.”

That’s what 2 more years of fried chicken does to an apple.

I support everything Boebert says here, but her rhetoric is beside the point.

Speech codes have no place in a free society. The authors of this rule must be reprimanded by general resolution, followed by movement to impeachment proceedings where applicable.

It’s amazing how this is not a bi-partisan issue.

Tell your representatives.

I believe courts are not built to overturn elections based on large numbers of fraudulent votes.

My survey of actual overturned elections versus fraud convictions led me to this tentative conclusion (sorry about no links here - only in prior post, but Heritage Foundation lists a series of overturned elections and Politico et al document, by contrast, fraud convictions):

Courts are willing to timely overturn elections with single digit margins, where guilt on each count (vote) is determined to the appropriate standard.

If the fraud is large, the court may eventually convict, but will only punish the fraudster, NOT overturn the result. This is because guilt of one person can be proven to a good standard. But to throw out 1000 votes would result in 1000 more injured parties. The court does not want to pronounce “blanket” guilt on the votes themselves, because even one false negative disenfranchises a voter. Each solitary case must therefore be proven to a high standard to affect an election result. (I am open to correction. Obviously I am no lawyer, but this is my intuition upon absorbing a small sample of court case information)

Trump’s main path is therefore through legislatures. This is actually gaining steam, despite what doomers say.

The struggle with the legislative path is that Trump’s lawyers CANNOT admit what I just stated above. The courts are not the venue for this decision, yet if they say that, it appears they are retreating on that front.

So we are in the uncomfortable position of explaining why legislators must act, without admitting that a court has good reason never to hear a case that may result in mass vote nullification. So don’t pay attention to any who scoff, “Why have the courts thrown it out? Bwahaha.”

The case is strong. Courts by precedent and defensible reason, will not take the case. Trump’s lawyers cannot admit this due to strategy/PR considerations. If we do not give up.... success is inevitable.

It will happen either via legislatures or via public outcry for a court/debate/hearing to grapple with the stunning work of the Trump data team regarding negative votes.

I want to emphasize that this is a clear winner. Anyone feeling doubt or defeatism is entitled to an opinion, but that opinion is wrong.

The data presentation is so compelling that it makes Jan 6 irrelevant. If we DON’T STOP pushing it will be heard.

It WILL end up in a court case or in a larger hearing that involves opposing debates. And if the evidence holds up, seats and offices will be overturned. I am not saying that with false optimism. I really don’t think it can be stopped unless the fight is surrendered.

Pretty sure Barron is hanging that knight on F6.

Haha you’re right. I read the whole article you linked. Weak arguments throughout. Almost every “debunk” was devoid of explanation... just a few humans quoted as saying, “that’s not true.”

Respectfully, you misunderstand the point.

My first premise is correct. I only say that shared spreadsheets “exist,” NOT that they factor into voting.

I only need to establish that there EXISTS a known type of computer program whose ORDINARY behavior would appear to produce negative updates.

After that, I can simply assert that such an ordinary phenomenon is occurring.

Whether that is true or false is irrelevant.

By simply describing an ordinary course of events, I place the burden of proof on our data team, who would now appear to claim something extraordinary happened.

Where is it demonstrated that “negative” votes aren’t an ordinary phenomenon? Has the team traced every data cable across the United States? Have they accounted for every input that ends up in the json data file? Are we to believe that 50 states and thousands of counties, all operating under different legal frameworks, transmit perfect, clean, sequential data? How do we know this doesn’t happen everywhere in every election? Where’s the fraud?

I hope you see my point now. My objection is unfair and may well be false. But this is exactly what the opposition will say.

Unless the data team demonstrates a change in the ground situation or provides another point of comparison, they are not making their strongest case.

Many thanks for the great work. Can your team demonstrate that negative votes are NOT ordinary?

The objection goes like this:

1. Shared spreadsheets exist.
2. Multiple instances of a shared spreadsheet can show staggered updates.
3. Updates on instance A of shared spreadsheet would appear to “erase” updates from instance B of the shared spreadsheet (“negative” votes detected.)
4. When synced, updates are reconciled. The “negative” votes are an illusion.

I do not require expertise to make this objection. I can simply ASSERT that somewhere in the pipeline, computers report on a shared basis with staggered updates. Therefore negative votes are ordinary and do not demonstrate fraud.

Unless your team goes on-site and physically verifies otherwise, I’m afraid the objection would be sustained (even if the point is ultimately wrong).

It is essential to demonstrate a change in the ground situation. How does 2020 data compare with 2016? 2018? With data from a region regarded as non-fraudulent? Does the frequency of “negative” votes change?

Without a point of comparison, I’m afraid your efforts can be justifiably waved off as “business as usual.” Just one reference or portion of a slide would help tremendously.

Best of luck to your team!

Strictly speaking, Jovan never claimed a direct hack. He did confirm 2-way communications detected, with the strong potential for further infiltration. He added cryptically, “and we’re in.”

I’d be interested to see how far his team really got. It is believable that some level of access was achieved... but to which device?

Right now my guess is that Jovan did not lie but rather allowed the audience to fill in the blanks and create a stir for greater visibility on the hearing.

Happy to learn more (Justin from the data team takes issue on his tdw posts). I would simply mention to others ‘man did you see that hearing’ and hopefully Jovan’s strategy did more to boost the signal than undercut credibility.

For myself, I’m not anxious to repeat claims of a hack right now, as I don’t think that exactly happened. Maybe we’ll get some clarity later.

Strong hearing though overall 👍

Just want to correct my error. Reviewed your testimony again, and it’s great. I was mistaken on anomalies... seems they first appear at county level, so I got that wrong.

My issue is with your fundamental reasoning. The exact flow chart is irrelevant.

In my model, there can be a “shared spreadsheet” type of interface anywhere in the chain.

Any office worker familiar with shared spreadsheets understands that updates from one user can override updates from another user. Data may appear “lost” in some situations; but eventually, everything can sync up.

It doesn’t matter whether my speculation is dead wrong. It doesn’t matter whether a human or machine performs the updates. Just the fact that shared spreadsheets exist is enough.

Your diagrams appear to assume a relatively clean and monolithic data path.

My objection is that I can go into your diagram and simply ASSERT that there is a patchwork of computer systems somewhere, instead of a single diagramed box. I’ll also assert that your team didn’t fully map out all the legacy systems in operation (even if you did). Any one of those systems could (hypothetically) produce a delayed update. Unless your team goes on-site and physically verifies otherwise, I’m afraid my objection is sustained.

Again, I think there was large-scale fraud and agree with your conclusion. That’s why I hope you can strengthen your analysis with an additional point of reference. What happened in 2016? 2018? (or perhaps compare with an area/state agreed to be non-fraudulent...) Why isn’t 2020 business as usual? Why aren’t so-called “negative votes” just the artifact of a patchwork of legacy systems that we always used for vote updates?

If some other point of comparison is not established, then unfortunately some variation of my line of reasoning above will defeat your analysis every time.

(Even if it’s wrong.)

Best of luck to your team!

I’m not a hacker either.

But the first thing I would do is attempt to log on and observe.

Is your password rejected?

Is there an error message?

Does the exact error message point you to which operating system is responsible for logon security? (Try it and search online for the exact wording of the prompt)

Would this provide a clue as to minimum password length and character requirements?

Are you locked out after a certain number of attempts? Does this produce a new and therefore searchable error message or prompt?

Or... can you attempt to logon time after time, opening the possibility of brute-force break-in by an algorithmic bot?

Are there any common keyboard combinations (alt-F4, alt-ctrl-del, blah blah etc) or command-prompt style entries you can make that reveal system info?

Maybe someone who knows more can give you some juicy pointers. But imo any interface gives you the power to kick the tires again and again, and it will necessarily give you more information. Good luck!

Thanks so much for your response. I appreciate your level of detail. Your correction is noted.

Edison, by my corrected lights, is the precursor to network reporting. Scytl/SOS is where the negative anomalies would arise - undetectable in the Edison feed unless the refresh catches it at just the right interval.

My skeptical mind is not won over. Unless a change in the ground situation is demonstrated, then ANY level of negative vote tabulation is acceptable.

I’m on your side, but I would prefer your presentation be unassailable.

My imagination tells me that negative votes could result from any number of ground situations. For example:

Precinct A reports 1000 new votes. They send a region-wide spreadsheet with +1000 votes straight to the national reporting service. But it fails to include 1000 precinct B votes, because precinct B changes were simply not saved to the shared spreadsheet. So it appears that 1000 votes were “subtracted” from precinct B.

After multiple updates, auto-saves, and cloud communications, the results from precinct A and Precinct B sync up again. The spreadsheet data are reconciled a few minutes later.

If I were the opposition, I would simply argue it’s is an artifact of cloud computing. Therefore, I wouldn’t care how MANY negative votes were detected... my imaginary model explains it.

An easy way to overcome this objection would be to demonstrate a significant change from previous election feeds. That would produce a strong inference of intentional interference and clear fraud.

By contrast, while the “exact number” switches you showed were impressive and compelling to me, they are still only an argument from improbability.

I want to see an airtight DEMONSTRATION that something unusual occurred in the districts notorious for fraud. That would require some reference to or acknowledgement of 2018, 16, 14 etc data, in my opinion.

Again, thanks so much for your work.

I am not an expert in anything. My “imaginary” model is likely flawed, but it is logically plausible to a layperson.

Overcome that objection please, and shut down that logical loop succinctly in your presentation if possible. Then there will be winning.... the likes of which you have never seen;)

I assume this isn’t real. But if it were, I would consult a lawyer and ask what advice would be given if you accidentally cued up a 77 trillion vote boost, but the final illegal keystrokes were hypothetically executed by a disabled 11-year old foster child who was just playing on the computer while you left to get some chips and salsa.

Thank you for your participation on this site and willingness to interact.

The weakest part of your team’s testimony: there was NO demonstration of a change in the ground situation.

Historically, were there ever negative votes or “switches” in the Edison data feed or similar sources? Was this particularly evident in 2020 in areas of notorious fraud? Or were there comparable events in 2018, 2016, etc? I am looking for a delta.

Not sure if you think this observation is on point, but some mention of this in your presentation would make the conclusion considerably stronger, in my opinion. Thanks again!

Biden must be decertified. Democrats want us to believe a Shadow Diploma.

But when you lock the teacher out of the exam room, you automatically fail.

They did it in the shadows. They did it on video. If the votes weren’t trailed, the test is failed.

That’s a first attempt. Go go go;)

The walls are closing in. 😷

Black rectangular bars across the top of the papers in the garbage bin appear to show ballots. Not sure why that wasn’t pointed out. Regardless... that could have been much better documented.

Yes yes yes.

This is better strategy than I realized. Romney?! How would he ever contest electors? Hahah...

I had it totally backwards (no sarcasm). Romney is a possible bellwether for a successful “republican” effort. If this guy feels heat and bends, ever so slightly, it’s a cue for all wishy-washy types to man up and move in the correct direction.

This guy needs his phone lines fried every bit as much as Maricopa. And think of the strength that projects: they’re going after this guy, a never-trumper as though he might flip? Dagnabit...the effort is bigger than we knew;)

Did someone ask if you knew about war based on /u? Not saying you wouldn’t, but I assumed you were just a fellow Stephen Wright fan.

Haha this looks like a classic Trump fakeout.

What he’s saying is strictly speaking not correct. But it is stated so directly that it’s easy for anyone to understand.

There will be a million “debunks,” but when the actual story comes out (https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/), which is in the process of blowing up RIGHT NOW despite frantic censorship, it will likely show Trump to be essentially correct... just a more complicated version.

Hence... this is setting the table.