Election Count Issues


babe

Well-Known Member
Here is a bit from one attorney looking at Dominion vote counting issues:


This is, actually, old news. I was reading about this scheme to do our vote counts through foreign-based (& possibly legally unprosecutable) corporations, way back in the 1990s. It has been an argument for having protections like paper ballots available for recounts, or computer images of each ballot available for inspection for audits. It has fueled my own imagination for a secure non-digital (analog) vote method....... capable of being "counted" by a simple scale or weighing of vote chips/cards/balls ...... all capable of being counted in full view/reading/object monitoring by all interested parties requesting observation of the polls......

A computer with a software package that contains specific portals for manipulation by paying interests from offshore, not subject to US law, parties. What a great idea. A pathway for buying election results. With Hillary Clinton's emoluments-collecting "charity" helping to pay for it all.

The attorney in this video has worked for Gen. Flynn and made significant progress in forcing unwilling Judges to finally concede point after point in that case, to uphold the law rather than just squash the investigation. tenacious to say the least.

I think this investigation/case is going to get on base.

It's a stretch to think it will stop States from certifying elections inside three weeks, but it will roll on three months into three years, and it will mean significant changes in the way things are done within the next two years.

I give Biden two years of media honeymoon, and then he will be impeached if the Dems haven't rolled out the vote to invoke the 25th Amendment on him and replace him with Harris by then. But the Republicans will take the house in two years, and will likely be able to keep Pelosi pretty tethered until then.

If there are enough states who cannot certify their vote by the Constitutional deadline, some say it will go the House to decide this election, and there will be one vote per state delegation, mostly Republican. But maybe enough RINO republicans to still give it to Biden.

At any rate, the media has completely abandoned objectivity here. There is no major media on the face of the earth who is not labeling the legal challenges as baseless and the claims of an actual voter win for Trump as some kind of crazy. Trumps statements have all been flatly described as "false". Not one reference in these media giants to any reasoned basis, just "False Claims" whatever.

A post like this one on Facebook or Twitter would simply be deleted as some kind of "racism" or whatever.

A point of notice for the mods, the attorney is a real person who has filed some real lawsuits. What she says in her interview is not of the character of speculation, it specifically outlines objective issues to be tried in court, which she says she has evidence for, saying further that she does not say things she cannot prove;.

And it is my opinion that proof is not always sufficient in legal matters. Courts are capable of ignoring proofs and ruling against facts. So we do not know what the rulings will be. I suggest here the entirely reasoned opinion that Biden will be the next US President regardless. I am however looking further down the road to what I consider to be a likely public response to information like this, regardless of what courts may rule.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: MVP


fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
Here is a bit from one attorney looking at Dominion vote counting issues:


This is, actually, old news. I was reading about this scheme to do our vote counts through foreign-based (& possibly legally unprosecutable) corporations, way back in the 1990s. It has been an argument for having protections like paper ballots available for recounts, or computer images of each ballot available for inspection for audits. It has fueled my own imagination for a secure non-digital (analog) vote method....... capable of being "counted" by a simple scale or weighing of vote chips/cards/balls ...... all capable of being counted in full view/reading/object monitoring by all interested parties requesting observation of the polls......

A computer with a software package that contains specific portals for manipulation by paying interests from offshore, not subject to US law, parties. What a great idea. A pathway for buying election results. With Hillary Clinton's emoluments-collecting "charity" helping to pay for it all.

The attorney in this video has worked for Gen. Flynn and made significant progress in forcing unwilling Judges to finally concede point after point in that case, to uphold the law rather than just squash the investigation. tenacious to say the least.

I think this investigation/case is going to get on base.

It's a stretch to think it will stop States from certifying elections inside three weeks, but it will roll on three months into three years, and it will mean significant changes in the way things are done within the next two years.

I give Biden two years of media honeymoon, and then he will be impeached if the Dems haven't rolled out the vote to invoke the 25th Amendment on him and replace him with Harris by then. But the Republicans will take the house in two years, and will likely be able to keep Pelosi pretty tethered until then.

If there are enough states who cannot certify their vote by the Constitutional deadline, some say it will go the House to decide this election, and there will be one vote per state delegation, mostly Republican. But maybe enough RINO republicans to still give it to Biden.

At any rate, the media has completely abandoned objectivity here. There is no major media on the face of the earth who is not labeling the legal challenges as baseless and the claims of an actual voter win for Trump as some kind of crazy. Trumps statements have all been flatly described as "false". Not one reference in these media giants to any reasoned basis, just "False Claims" whatever.

A post like this one on Facebook or Twitter would simply be deleted as some kind of "racism" or whatever.

A point of notice for the mods, there is nothing here about any speculation. The attorney is a real person who has filed some real lawsuits. What she says in her interview is not of the character of speculation, it specifically outlines objective issues to be tried in court, which she says she has evidence for, saying further that she does not say things she cannot prove;.

And it is my opinion that proof is not always sufficient in legal matters. Courts are capable of ignoring proofs and ruling against facts. So we do not know what the rulings will be. I suggest here the entirely reasoned opinion that Biden will be the next US President regardless. I am however looking further down the road to what I consider to be a likely public response to information like this, regardless of what courts may rule.
At any rate, the media has completely abandoned objectivity here. There is no major media on the face of the earth who is not labeling the legal challenges as baseless and the claims of an actual voter win for Trump as some kind of crazy. Trumps statements have all been flatly described as "false". Not one reference in these media giants to any reasoned basis, just "False Claims" whatever.

Why does that fact that all the media outlets say the same thing (that trump is just grasping at straws basically) mean that they have abandoned objectivity? Can't that simply mean that they are all correct?

If all media outlets came out with a story that water is wet would that mean they they were not being objective?

Also, what will Biden be impeached for O Great Fortune Teller?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP

babe

Well-Known Member
At any rate, the media has completely abandoned objectivity here. There is no major media on the face of the earth who is not labeling the legal challenges as baseless and the claims of an actual voter win for Trump as some kind of crazy. Trumps statements have all been flatly described as "false". Not one reference in these media giants to any reasoned basis, just "False Claims" whatever.

Why does that fact that all the media outlets say the same thing (that trump is just grasping at straws basically) mean that they have abandoned objectivity? Can't that simply mean that they are all correct?

If all media outlets came out with a story that water is wet would that mean they they were not being objective?

Also, what will Biden be impeached for O Great Fortune Teller?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Please stop trying to mock stuff you refuse to read. Or can't understand.

I have to admit, if you are willing to consider Fox a major media retailer, there is one that at least ran this story.

Biden is perhaps the worst, even worse than Hillary, candidate ever. He was picked to carry the torch for the Dems by Chinese-influenced major political players. He is himself directly influenced by China. Chinese interests have benefited through corrupt deals run through Hunter Biden, which the media gave no account of, beyond mere dismissals, generally. However, the investigations will be going forward.

The link you ignored may also implicate Biden in criminal matters such as election fraud, as Sydney Powell seems to indicate is likely from her "evidence" which will be brought out on trial. There may be enough evidence, and there may be some courts that will rule accordingly, and may order offending states to do something about their systems, perhaps even invalidate the tallies we have so far.

I think that is unlikely inside the three weeks or so we have for states to certify their elections. But some state officials may elect to not certify as preferable to going to jail themselves, who knows.

When no major media establishments are doing their own original news gathering, it's become a trend that they all squawk together instantaneously. Parrot media. But who the hell knows where the real source is. Corporate bosses who've paid out millions if not billions to have influence with the right people. Such types just sit on their asses and tell reporters, in fact their whole "news" organization, what to say.

It's science, bro. Follow the money.

The main reservation I hold is whether our courts can actually rule according to evidence, even overwhelming evidence, in this case.
 

Gameface

1-20-21
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
They can do hand recounts, they can do whatever they think needs to be done. Show us the discrepancy or STFU.

She's not saying anything. They don't just need to say "votematic is bad, okay" they need to show the discrepancy, which would be VERY simple to do.
 

Avery

Well-Known Member
Sidney Powell, hired by Trump as part of his legal team, is of course going to spout off about how everything was rigged. She's a lawyer getting paid to say anything to keep the checks coming. Kind of how lawyers make a living.

She said earlier that they would release mountains of proof this week. Still looking for those mountains. Think they would do that sooner or later as elections get certified next week.

Funny that an election that was so clearly rigged can't actually be proven so in any court of law nor get pass any oral arguments. Most of the lawsuits have been procedural vs. any actual votes.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
It's hilarious that babe thinks there is anything compelling about that video.
Sidney Powell says she doesn't say things without evidence to back it up. She took up the case for Gen Flynn and has gained a lot of evidence in the process that even the FBI didn't want to let loose. She is meticulous, hard-working, and as I said "tenacious".

Trump often tweets off the top of his head, anything from any source, to puff his point. Like the OANN story about Edison Research, an exit polling outfit. Some numbskull conservative saw something in the exit polls at some point, early on voting day, and projected or extrapolated a huge differential in the vote count versus exit poll. But Edison is a solid liberal lying machine in the first place. No one with any sense would believe them. In fact, even other liberal media have run stories about how wrong they are/were. Of course Edison flatly denies the information OANN ran on.

So I don't consider Trump or Edison or any pop-fly story enough to file a lawsuit. I don't think Powell does either.

The issue with the voting machines are old issues. There has been some resistance to using them in favor of methods that actually protect against the frauds which computers and rigged software can potentially do. Powell says she has sworn affidavits of state officials who took bribes to pass on the contracts for these machines.
She says the FBI and CIA have taken in scores of complaints on the issue, and she considers it a scandal there has not been a criminal investigation run on them.

So lets see what she is willing to file in the courts, and look at what evidence she has.
 

Avery

Well-Known Member
So lets see what she is willing to file in the courts, and look at what evidence she has.
Rudy gave the game away a bit yesterday in his court appearance where he mentioned the nascent goal was to take it to the SC.

Time is not on their side as judges regardless of their political ideology aren't fond of 11th hour cases. By the time some of the funded recounts are done, they'll be even less time before results are certified.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Sidney Powell, hired by Trump as part of his legal team, is of course going to spout off about how everything was rigged. She's a lawyer getting paid to say anything to keep the checks coming. Kind of how lawyers make a living.

She said earlier that they would release mountains of proof this week. Still looking for those mountains. Think they would do that sooner or later as elections get certified next week.

Funny that an election that was so clearly rigged can't actually be proven so in any court of law nor get pass any oral arguments. Most of the lawsuits have been procedural vs. any actual votes.
I was surprised Fox ran this story. The reporter is a bit loose, as I'd term it. She overstated or misstated key points, demonstrating that she was not understanding what Powell said. Powell referred to contracts to purchase the computers/software that were on the scale of a hundred million dollar contracts, and said she had sworn affidavits about financial kickbacks going to the state officials who made the decision buy. The airhead reporter took it that the kickbacks were hundreds of millions.
The reporter made several other mistakes of that kind, and may have caused some people to mistake Powell's competence. But Powell refuted each such mistake.

As a general rule, though, Avery, court cases are not dismissed because they are filed by lawyers who are working for a paying client, and if you wanted to bulk up your own credibility, you'd address the claims not the persons.

I understand Trump is out saying stuff too. He's showtime, he'll hype it the best he can. A year ago I wrote to him, telling him he needed to address the issue before the election, not wait until afterwards. He should have been in court on the cases the liberals were running to loosen the state voting laws one way or another. He should have been setting someone out to investigate Dominion even then.

But seeing Sydney Powell saying what she said, and knowing what I know about her, means..... to me, at least...... that this is going to be a thing beyond the vote certification deadlines.

It means we will have changes made, long term.
 

Gameface

1-20-21
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Sidney Powell says she doesn't say things without evidence to back it up. She took up the case for Gen Flynn and has gained a lot of evidence in the process that even the FBI didn't want to let loose. She is meticulous, hard-working, and as I said "tenacious".

Trump often tweets off the top of his head, anything from any source, to puff his point. Like the OANN story about Edison Research, an exit polling outfit. Some numbskull conservative saw something in the exit polls at some point, early on voting day, and projected or extrapolated a huge differential in the vote count versus exit poll. But Edison is a solid liberal lying machine in the first place. No one with any sense would believe them. In fact, even other liberal media have run stories about how wrong they are/were. Of course Edison flatly denies the information OANN ran on.

So I don't consider Trump or Edison or any pop-fly story enough to file a lawsuit. I don't think Powell does either.

The issue with the voting machines are old issues. There has been some resistance to using them in favor of methods that actually protect against the frauds which computers and rigged software can potentially do. Powell says she has sworn affidavits of state officials who took bribes to pass on the contracts for these machines.
She says the FBI and CIA have taken in scores of complaints on the issue, and she considers it a scandal there has not been a criminal investigation run on them.

So lets see what she is willing to file in the courts, and look at what evidence she has.
When asked for evidence she laughed and said she can't just reveal her evidence on national TV. Why? That doesn't even make sense. In any criminal case you don't (are not allowed to legally) hide your evidence and then bust it out like it's some trick play in a HS football game. You have to provide discovery. Evidence doesn't become less potent once it's revealed. That's full on nonsense.

Then when she was flinging allegations of kickbacks around the reporter asked if she could name who received the "hundreds of millions of dollars" of kickback money. Her response was that if she said "hundreds of millions" she misspoke and that it wasn't just one person... The reporter asked who any of them were. She didn't have an answer.

She talks about how you can just drag and drop votes from one candidate to another in the safematic software. Ok, cool story. Super ****ing vague, but that's fine. You know what can happen now? They can look at the ballots again, see if there is a significant discrepancy between the way the votes were counted vs what the physical ballots say and it's game over. So let's hold our breath and wait with rapt anticipation of the recount... Don't get your hopes up, babe. Just a fair warning.

Has there been any news of sopenas, raids, etc. to collect evidence? No? Weird. That's what happens when you have evidence of wrongdoing, you get your hands on all the evidence that the potentially guilty people possess as fast as possible. Odd that isn't happening. Actually not odd because there is nothing there but vague allegations.
 

Gameface

1-20-21
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
I was surprised Fox ran this story. The reporter is a bit loose, as I'd term it. She overstated or misstated key points, demonstrating that she was not understanding what Powell said. Powell referred to contracts to purchase the computers/software that were on the scale of a hundred million dollar contracts, and said she had sworn affidavits about financial kickbacks going to the state officials who made the decision buy. The airhead reporter took it that the kickbacks were hundreds of millions.
The reporter made several other mistakes of that kind, and may have caused some people to mistake Powell's competence. But Powell refuted each such mistake.

As a general rule, though, Avery, court cases are not dismissed because they are filed by lawyers who are working for a paying client, and if you wanted to bulk up your own credibility, you'd address the claims not the persons.

I understand Trump is out saying stuff too. He's showtime, he'll hype it the best he can. A year ago I wrote to him, telling him he needed to address the issue before the election, not wait until afterwards. He should have been in court on the cases the liberals were running to loosen the state voting laws one way or another. He should have been setting someone out to investigate Dominion even then.

But seeing Sydney Powell saying what she said, and knowing what I know about her, means..... to me, at least...... that this is going to be a thing beyond the vote certification deadlines.

It means we will have changes made, long term.
Her claims were all so vague that there's nothing there to address.
 

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
At any rate, the media has completely abandoned objectivity here. There is no major media on the face of the earth who is not labeling the legal challenges as baseless and the claims of an actual voter win for Trump as some kind of crazy. Trumps statements have all been flatly described as "false". Not one reference in these media giants to any reasoned basis, just "False Claims" whatever.

Why does that fact that all the media outlets say the same thing (that trump is just grasping at straws basically) mean that they have abandoned objectivity? Can't that simply mean that they are all correct?

If all media outlets came out with a story that water is wet would that mean they they were not being objective?

Also, what will Biden be impeached for O Great Fortune Teller?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Did you notice that the major media completely ignored the Hunter Biden emails? They have a goals and a narrative and they want the public to buy them, truth be damned. Anyone who still thinks the mainstream media is serving the public or telling the truth is a fool.

The Hunter Biden emails were real. That much is undisputed. Given the way the media handled that issue and how well it worked out for them, nobody should be the slightest bit surprised at the way they are handling the election fraud story. I do not know whether enough fraud to swing the election occurred, but I do know that there was fraud. Quite a bit of it. It's pretty pathetic that the vast majority of our media does not care.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Rudy gave the game away a bit yesterday in his court appearance where he mentioned the nascent goal was to take it to the SC.

Time is not on their side as judges regardless of their political ideology aren't fond of 11th hour cases. By the time some of the funded recounts are done, they'll be even less time before results are certified.

I'd question who is more interested in delay tactics here. PA court stalling to run out the clock for the SC appeal or make it look moot. "Rudy" was just stating the obvious. Whatever the stacked PA court does. Sorta rubbing the spur sores on the PA SC haunches reminding them how it feels to be rebuffed by the SC. The issue is state legislatures having the constitutional jurisdiction to make voting laws for the state, not the courts or governor.

PA didn't follow the SC order. The PA vote could be ruled illegally run.
 

Gameface

1-20-21
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Anyone who cares to can search for "Hunter Biden emails" and see that it has been reported on by pretty much everybody. The consensus is that they don't know if they're real or not. So that's where it's at. Prove they are real and it'll be reported as such.
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
Did you notice that the major media completely ignored the Hunter Biden emails? They have a goals and a narrative and they want the public to buy them, truth be damned. Anyone who still thinks the mainstream media is serving the public or telling the truth is a fool.

The Hunter Biden emails were real. That much is undisputed. Given the way the media handled that issue and how well it worked out for them, nobody should be the slightest bit surprised at the way they are handling the election fraud story. I do not know whether enough fraud to swing the election occurred, but I do know that there was fraud. Quite a bit of it. It's pretty pathetic that the vast majority of our media does not care.
And you also know that the fraud was only done in favor of Biden right? Only the democrats committed fraud right? Only investigate the states that trump lost for voter fraud. Seems totally legit. Just like the emails from hunter are so damning but all the russia and ukraine stuff was a nothing burger right? Despite indictments and convictions and confessions of guilt. Oh and the lack of indictments and convictions in relation to hunter. Oh and of course hillarys emails! Remember all the indictments and convictions from that fiasco!

You certainly believe the same type of things consistently. At least there that. If it is bad for the republicans then its fake news. If its bad for democrats then its all true!
I got you man.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
Proof that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will work. Will probably poison the body politic for quite awhile.

And more evidence that conspiracism is now the default thinking mode of many Americans. How can that possibly bode well? Rationality is of considerable value. It’s being trashed. It’s the age of conspiracy theories, and it’s going to cause a lot of damage.

The line from Timothy Snyder in my signature says it all where this **** is concerned. It’s not one sided, though. Trump might be selling it, but Trumpsters are buying what they want to hear.

 

babe

Well-Known Member
Her claims were all so vague that there's nothing there to address.
Sure, there is no named culprit or published specific facts. That's for the courts. The public gets the general concept, and most Americans actually, including a lot of Biden supporters, see the concerning reports or have seen irregularities themselves. It was not a clean win. Media spin smells here.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
The OP video link contains a number of fairly specific allegations.

(1) positive assertion of affidavits relating to families receiving kickback payola in return for state officials signing the computer system/software package deals. It sounded like "numerous" such affidavits. Such affidavits relate to criminal charges for state election officials.

(2) software package can be used in computer voting machines other than Dominion.

(3) software permits "drag and dump" movements of specific candidate votes to a file which can then be deleted.

These specific events will not show up in a simple "recount", even a hand count with fresh tabulation. Most states like AZ have a fairly broad recount validation range where they will not change the first count unless the second count is off by 1% or more....... more than the difference in the candidates which is about 0.2% in three states. The bgought and paid for commissioner of elections will simply assert the recount validates within acceptable limits.

To prove the machine systematically changed some percentage of the votes you need canvassing and audit procedures. YHou need to be able to trace how a specific vote was counted initially, and what the machine did to it after that.

(3) Software permits "hacking" or other access from off site, even in foreign countries by anyone who knows how to do it, with the possible altering of results.

I don't know about you, you most people would prefer to steal money(or votes) from some country where there's little chance of being discovered or prosecuted. that's where the really smart fraudsters locate themselves.

The question here is whether such actions leave a trail or can be found out after they've happened.

The ditsy reporter gal wanted to know if Powell had a Dominion machine and a copy of the software package in her possession. Powell deferred the question, saying she's just not going to say something like that on national TV. It looked to me like she expected the question, and there was no expression on her face I could read as "Damn I wish I did".

So the basic idea here is that if this kind of vote changing is attempted, you should be moderate enough in your method to keep it more or less invisible, or at least small enough to be credible.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Powell also stated that they had proof consisting of 2016 California data. A number of republican house candidates dies the slow death of days of counting after the election with eroding leads and finally a loss. That's always when the counting stops, ya know.

As I have noted elsewhere in this forum, California boasted of a 76% turnout in 2016, even though some surveys showed around 25% of registered voters were either non-existent, had never lived at the claim address, or had moved prior to the election, or had not shown up at all to vote in over 6 years. This time CA only claimed 67% turnout. On the other hand, PA reported 70% turnout in 2016 and nearly 74% turnout this year.

The machine part of the fraud involves ballots actually gathered into the bins and run through the machine. There is no way fake ballots can be removed from that count. A machine could match registration signatures to ballot signatures, or even registration addresses to precinct locations, and could identify probable duplicate voters. This year, one man in LA cast 6000 votes for Biden. I think he's going to jail for about three months.....

(4) Powell also asserted that the machines could be instructed not to match signatures where that is required by state law. Could be instructed to only count the top of the ticket (ignore downballot issues). In fact, ever element of legal vote can be manipulated from outside on command if there is someone interested and knowledgeable and in possession of critical equipment/information required for doing that.
 

Top