If it was a group wiling to fight for the people's choice and decertify, there would have been a back-and-forth, there would have been requests for the totality of our analysis in Georgia, and there would have been an invitation to speak further on the matter with them. Having had none of those things happen yet, the only indications I have are that the purpose was to appease and move on beyond the 20th.

All I heard was the silence at the end, where there were no questions after being presented hard data of fraud.

We have thousands (literally) of these stories in the form of affidavits and testimonies. The problem is that the only convincing data for legislators is pretty much systemic data, or data taken in aggregate in these elections. If I were a legislator, even a SINGLE instance of people not receiving a ballot or getting their vote counted incorrectly would be an impetus for doing a root-cause analysis.

We're being so frivolous as a society with the sacred nature of even a single vote.

I'm only on the side of liberty, freedom, and justice, and it just so happens that that puts me on the side of everyone here. Isn't it sad that there a side counter to liberty, freedom, and justice?

I think we'll expand our analysis beyond the swing states after the Jan 6th period, because either way, that's all we have left before us. I'd like to go into Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, and I'd also like to go into Lindsey Graham's race, Mitch McConnell, etc. since they seem to be the people central to preventing our ability to get our message out.

We presented hard evidence of fraud, and said unequivocally that fraud occurred in the election. There wasn't a single question after our presentation, and the conclusion portion continued on as if we hadn't even testified -- I think mostly due to the red herring of the "hack" (that isn't real, if you read my other comment).

Take that how you will. That chairman sounded like he had no intention to decertify, and was in more of a "we'll do it better next time" sort of attitude, because no one has made him think any differently about taking that approach.

There's a major difference between intranet and internet. When we're talking about devices connecting to the internet, we're talking about something communicating with another device across networks. What you're looking at in that image are just wi-fi networks, which can be (and are in this case) mostly intranets without actual internet access. You'd connect to that network, be able talk to other devices on the network, and that's about it. It's necessary because of the nature of some of the command and control systems in the software employed at these precincts.

All that being said, the systems we have in place are bullshit. There's a reason media folks have constantly parroted back that "widespread voter fraud is near impossible to enact". It's because they're basing that statement off of the decentralized nature of our past voting systems, where we counted paper ballots, ballots were tabulated, and at every step of the way you'd have audit-able trails of paper.

That's not the system we have today.

Georgia in particular is the most centralized state in the union. It's so centralized, that the county doesn't even find out how the county voted until the Secretary of State TELLS the county how the county voted. Does that seem right to you?

Anyhow, focusing on internet connectivity of devices is a red herring.

So far, every attempt to debunk our analyses has failed -- we've had multiple calls with people who were interested in doing that (and we even welcome it!). But, in the end, they could not refute our conclusions because the premises are sound, the dataset is sound, and Dave Lobue who you saw testify today along with our other data scientists are the real deal.

Why does that hard data not flip the states? That is more of what I said in another answer that politicians are focused on doing as little as possible while still being able to keep their head above water politically, because no one has the gumption to take the political risks involved with doing the right thing. The lower level state players are told: "Play the game, and if you do all of our bidding, maybe we'll allow you to run for federal office, or get you a job as a consultant or pundit".

Take that how you will. Either way, Donald J. Trump has given us a path to get enough people angry at this state of affairs that we might be able to move towards fixing that system, and that's going to be one of the greatest gifts he gave us.

There are certain folks suited for office -- I think my place would be helping get those people elected through my knowledge of data, online marketing, etc. in future, once we get through this difficult time before the 6th.

These RINOs are, in a lot of cases, worse than the actual democrats, because at least you know where the democrats stand.

Most legislators are taking an approach of doing as absolutely little as possible while still maintaining some semblance of caring about the concerns of the people. I think the only answer to make the concerns of the people so loud, so that the legislators know that if they don't support the actual will of the people, they'll never be re-elected.

I started doing something like that, taking the graphic that we had of the voting diagram and saying "vulnerability here, vulnerability here" etc., but it just didn't get done in time to be inserted into the video. We're just extremely limited by time right now as we push to the 6th.

Thanks for watching! Hopefully we'll get to present at other state legislatures before the 6th about similar analyses done on their states.

That's my perspective. Things like that suck all of the oxygen out of the room, so that a true irrefutable data analysis such as the one we presented gets overshadowed by people thinking they hacked the Gibson mainframe.

Thanks! And thank you for your support, patriot!

While it's perfectly fine that people are approaching things from that perspective, like I mentioned in the beginning of the testimony, it's just not our approach. We only care about things which can prove where, for instance, votes move from Trump to Biden. Those are the hard facts that are irrefutable as long as your dataset is correct, and our dataset is literally the same data that the secretary of state uses.

https://1776.fun/ contains a list of contacts, and any help we can get to put pressure on the legislators to do the right thing would be amazing -- thanks so much for anything you can do to help call/email them!

It's absolutely a great idea to do that -- the major issue was that we were so limited by time to release things, that we had to cut away any unnecessary (or less important) things and only focus on what could get the message out there the fastest, and what could make the message better understood while requiring the least manpower to put together.

In future elections, now that we're aware of all this blatant fraud, I think we'll have to have all that stuff you're talking about built and ready for the public to consume easily.

Thanks! There are so many avenues of fraudulent activity that we explored while looking at all of the states' data, that we had to narrow down our approaches to only focus on working with discrete numbers (not the fractional multiplication stuff people did previously), and to only focus on things we can prove without requiring datasets that have to be subpoenaed.

Hopefully today's testimony brought some legitimacy to a data-analysis perspective of looking at fraud occurring during the election.

All in all, our group just wants to save the republic and have the will of the people reflect in our elections.

While I appreciate all who testified, it is unfortunate that Jovan's second portion where he was talking about the poll pads is completely false, as the poll pads' only job is to check people in at the Secretary of State's site, and are therefore connected to the internet.

It sounded more like (and correct me if I'm wrong) that all they did was get onto the same network (WPA protected which is easily crackable vs. WPA2?). Actually cracking the poll pad is another matter entirely -- it's basically an iPad created by Knowink Inc., and has no affiliation with dominion. Nothing can be changed vote-wise, and the most that you could do through a poll pad is search through the Secretary of State voter registration data and check people in. If a voter were marked as having already voted and went to a precinct to vote, they would be given a provisional ballot to fill out, so you'd still be able to vote and have that counted in the election.

Being worked on at the moment. Patriotism doesn’t take holidays.

You’re hitting on the thing that we’ll be going into more detail in another video: when a ballot is adjudicated, a NEW scanned ballot image is created. The old image (of what the voter filled out) is destroyed, and only the new scanned image is used in the recount.

Contact the offices of either of your two senators to contest the results of the fraudulent election.

Thanks -- as mentioned in other replies, we're improving in our videos and presentations, and streamlining to the important stuff we want to highlight. Will of course take your feedback and use it to improve our subsequent videos.

Thanks -- we're getting better as far as creating easier-to-understand videos/presentations, but it's a learning process and we're crunched for time as far as this election process is concerned.

Will take that feedback into consideration with the future videos.

PM sent