I know he got a settlement for Sandman and all, but Robert Barnes, another pro-Trump attorney, has cast real doubt on Lin's proficiency and sometimes motives. I am not up to speed on all deatils, but with his involvement on representing Rittenhouse, they made a poor strategy in the Illinois court, and also appear to fund raise for themselves rather than to Rittenhouse's parents or Rittenhouse. I don't have a greatly informed opinion or law knowledge, I just watch Barnes weekly on the Viva Frei co-podcast that talks about politically relevant law. Link to his website in case anyone wants to use: https://www.barneslawllp.com/ Barnes has also said he will only respond if the actual client contacts him, it's some type of law standard, so I'd recommend him to the whistleblower. But I guess he's already working with Trump's legal team.
As a non-lawyer, I don't see why... The sworn testimony getting recanted is not a reason not to investigate. I believe his testimony would never be sufficient for a court finding, and was only something used to get in the investigation. And OTOH, if you have investigators say it is a "storm" and "senators are involved" -- alongside the vaguely threatening gibberish -- only really adds to a justification for audit and further investigations. It doesn't make sense for the agents to act that way unless there was something to hide.
I agree. Making a Fake News piece on George Bush is supposedly a strategy used by Karl Rove so that everyone would dismiss the real dirt on him... I also don't follow the logic that having this helps sway a judge. We already have real evidence. The real election official story has legal history that is easily admissible in trial.
Thank you for the hard work. " As can be seen in the image, only 54 votes were added, but the ratio changed in Biden's favor by a whole 0.6%! This is proof that not only did the glitch happen, but it doesn't seem to have been reverted at all." would be damning. BTW, website slowing down for me now. Is it because of these analyses that need to be suppressed?
This appears to explain why there would be Biden only votes (they appear to be transferred by candidate using an algorithm).
- At the beginning he shows the voting software multiplies some votes with a wait, it doesn't count them as integers at the beginning either, they are stored as a decimal. You can have 0.3 votes in this system.
- At about 15 min, he says the software transfers between candidates (rather than the software making an entirely fake voting record).
- At 23' he shows Oakland county (my county, one of the biggest) precincts and shows Trump did much worse in Republican heavy districts in reported results; like 20% worse than the Republican straight party vote in Republican heavy districts. E.g., in a 45% straight-party Republican voting district, Trump lost to Biden by 30%. The exact opposite of the expected pattern.
- The exact pattern occurred (same line slope) in every county that had significant Republicans in the 4 MI examples they looked at.
- Early votes and Election Day voting had the same pattern, contradicting the idea that early votes were a Democrat/Biden favored phenomena in MI. For this to be true, the county would need to be full of Lincoln-project neocon turd clones.
- The conclusion 138k, minimum, were taken from Trump in MI. That would have Trump down a remaining 11k. However, this is based off of the deviation pattern, and there is no way to say, precisely, what the true votes were by precinct, hence the "minimum" estimation here. Their analysis was not applicable to Wayne county, because it had no Republican heavy precincts. Any fraud in Detroit would be still added to the 140k.
- As a follow up I'd be curious how/why this appears to work in the slow manner. I was watching Oakland County have Trump up a few hundred thousand most of the night, then late it had a striking turn against him.
Maybe a fine line between showing resilience and wasting time arguing with a wall, because you show a good example to people who aren't speaking up. It's sort of like when extremist go unchallenged, they move the middle, and people keep trying to appease them. So, arguing may seem useless, but it has a greater affect, on the whole.
I don't think it will only be tears this time. I'm getting premonitions of them suicide bombing or something very ugly. Can't be held hostage by fear of their craziness though, so lets go full speed to flip them. Realistic expectations for the first day of the process is a court filing is understood to have certain ballots hang under legal/judicial decision, then the left media response will be to blame Trump and the judges involved as trying to steal the election, something like that to the nth degree. Get prepared for when they start to riot even more.
Man that Youtube gaslighting about "robust" safeguards are too obvious. Mail-in called insecure by Jimmy Carter. Voter ID and verification required in just about every other Democracy, even leftist ones. Dead people been found on voter roles for ages. Election judge plead guilty to tipping the scales for cash in PA earlier in the year. ""Robust safeguards"". I suppose that means the poll watchers, which get kicked out and ignored when they allege fraud. You'd think calling this robust was too far, even for them.
Not sure, but I think he sets guidance. He has claimed the DoJ is full of insubordination before; see how they went against him with Flynn's case. In that situation, it makes me worry the authorization has little weight. He authorized the Durham investigation, too. It sounds kind of like he suggested they go do it, but that's not going to happen if that would rely on mostly lefties. Perhaps this will play a role like an investigation that is used to provide evidence to find a bigger story, or to be used as a basis for hearing or ruling in other cases. IDK
It was good that they caught him, but they never seemed to look into the elections he altered. They say he admitted to helping Dem candidates, but don't name them or take action.
- "DeMuro admitted that an unnamed political consultant gave DeMuro directions and paid him money to illegally add votes for certain Democratic candidates" WHO??? and who paid?
I never watched Baier much. I don't know if he is to blame because I tune out Fox except for Tucker, mostly. He always seemed like a straight edge and not sure how he handled the election talks on an individual level as a reporter. Did he also pretend not to be able to comprehend any reason why the projected winner may require auditing? If yes, I guess he has no principles, even if he isn't a really bad guy. With that said, fuck Fox. How dumb can you be to think the Fox viewers will tune in for CNN. It's like their execs believe the dumb redneck caricature of Republican voters, and think they will just follow their (supposedly) partisan talking heads.
I kind of like Barr and am not thinking he is slow-walking as much as other people think. His arguments, at least, are always right on. I don't think anyone emasculated Dems in congress as easily and disdainfully as Barr did, so I feel for the guy even if he hasn't really gotten things done. He complained about insubordination at the DoJ and other things - not sure if there are hidden difficulties. In any case, he sadly seems like a follower in anything MAGA, at best. Even as head of DoJ, can't be counted on to lead and have results. His self-led investigations into clear wrongdoing never seem to succeed, but maybe there is some way we can put a case before Barr where he will be position. So...What's the best way to make a collective lawsuit that handles all of the fraud and get Barr to prosecute and send to the SC? I'm worried with legal cases like in Nevada where they will delay checking until "after the election" (unreal but real quote there). Basically, corrupt justice system people can attempt to make these into minor individual crimes but not tie them to changing the election. We need to make a challenge like Bush vs. Gore in all the questionable states, or all of them together, which will have election-deciding consequences.
Imagine telling this to a leftie at different points in history. 2018 - election fraud never happens , ha we're so good and awesome 2020, May - it's so irrelevant its pretty small, it would never be allowed to happen in a Presidential election 2020, Nov 6 - Give up! Fraud never happens, and it's impossible. 2020, Nov. 7 - We're going to start keeping a list of comments about this 2020, Nov. 8 - Imagine how it will look to a prospective employer if they see how despicable you've acted 2021 - Imagine hiring a guy who ruined Democracy.
Well, from the reading of it, it seemed the bottom line indicated that the DJTFP (which I assume = DJTP in #1) was for "recount and election contests" -- really not sure if that is the best place. Sent 500$ there for now.
Yes, please confirm someone. Both are under the legal defense fund website and after selecting an amount it lets you look and change a default split between:
1- Donald J. Trump for President, Inc
2- Trump Make America Great Again Committee (99% default)
From the website, it seems like both are split between the RNC and Trump election funds already. The Trump funds, though, go to the RNC when there is leftover. The Trump For President may go to paying election debt, if there is any.
So the question is: is there debt now / which gets the money more effectively to legal challenges ?
Detailed below: Trump Make America Great Again Committee (“TMAGAC”) is a joint fundraising committee composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (“DJTP”) and the Republican National Committee (“RNC”).
60% to DJTP for deposit in DJTP’s 2020 General Election Account for the retirement of general election debt (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000) or, if such debt has been retired or any portion of the contribution would exceed the limit to the 2020 General Election Account, for deposit in DJTP’s Recount Account (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000); 40% to the RNC’s Operating account (up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000); and any additional funds to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account (up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000). ... Donations to DJTFP’s Recount Account will be used in connection with any post-election recounts and election contests and not for the purpose of influencing any federal election.
I didn't follow the whole step 4 with the electronic pollbook inspectors 100%, but, why are they hiring high school students to begin with? They're the same guys who pay more than other election officials, and the same place that said they're expecting to be slow. Who, if trying to accomplish a job in that circumstance, picks high schoolers? Not to mention, they know they can't stay for the job, and it happens to be the most pivotal election ever...
It doesn't need to distinguish the ballot. IF we show the file was altered and people who were not matching on the supplemental list were put in erroneously/maliciously on the WVF file, it shows fraud. We still know when they were registered to vote. The number of mismatches equals the number of ballots to invalidate, and you should be able to even find the mismatched named ballot and see who the vote was for. Alternatively, if you find fraud happened in a certain time range, then all ballots from there get thrown out unless they can be validated manually.
It seems the SC is in position to take strong action on the Republican side. I just hope they make sure whatever ruling they give can't be easily dodge. Right now, Philly ignored the order and there is no penalty. They need some way to make it so if they ignore it, they will find with the Republicans to throw out all votes added after the time that Philadelphia actively ignored them. I hope this time Barrett finds the impetus.
This sounds actionable. All that is needed is to prove fraud is simple steps: Voting role file (the "QVF") edits that are made that do not match the supplemental file referenced. If they do not match, audit or remove ballots. We need to see the file history before and after during steps. They may try to delete it or edit it after, but deleting would be a problem because then the numbers wouldn't balance out. Also, a lot of names getting polled with 01/01/1900 on the voting record, if they didn't edit them all. If there were even a dozen of these in the vote record that we can lookup in the SoS website (but we'd need names to match so its not easy without some method at hand), that is probably statistically unlikely enough to cause people to look into it. If we can't get that now, looking at the same QVF would be the other way to find it. I assume this needs a lawsuit, which will first be rejected by a local judge, then approved by a higher court in state, if not the SCOTUS.
As a metro-Detroiter, let me confirm our local papers have been garbage for my entire reading life. You'll see very limited focus, about zero critical analysis, and bad writing. Like, off the top of my head, articles about Detroit students winning a lawsuit over poor education they received, because it did not provide some students with literacy -- full of grammar mistakes. Local papers also have timidity. They really really are scared of stirring the pot. The Detroit News seems a tad more right-wing and had anti-Whitmer editorials allowed, though, and if you click the comments on the article, they're leaning based. The entire thrust of the "conspiracy theories not adding up" article is that the author thinks it'd be hard, and can only find reported cases of small numbers. He dismisses the post-stamp changing because it woudln't matter according to MI rules, disregarding any possibility that someone making this illegal change might also bring the ballots in a vote center illegally, and claim they had been delivered earlier. With regard to the vote "glitch" in Antrim, MI, the writer posulates that the blame is from a clerk "who failed to update software use to collect data from voting machine". Interestingly, the author did not feel a need to ask why not updating the software makes random percentage vote switches, and what evidence there was that this caused the error. And even assuming it is true, he also does not feel moved to ask whether everyone has made sure they updated the software, everywhere it is used. GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME COME ON DEBUNKED FAaACTCHECK FALSE
Do you have a link? That doesn't match with the press release about this. Allegedly, an official thought it wasn't adding up, then decided to manually check. They said it was a software error. How would the SoS have additional insight onto whether it was human or software error, without a thorough investigation? Does this mean a human error allegedly occurred 6,000 times in the same direction?
Can anyone clear this up? What is the actual basis for the "recant". I watched a few of the Project Veritas youtube videos but I'm not exactly sure what he signed. WaPo seems to say that officials say he signed something to recant, but it seems no first hand document is out there. It is interesting to see Veritas expose what the agents did (apparently, sent by Lindsey Graham as part of his investigation? However, the auditing and investigations can and should go on, whatever happens with this whistleblower.