Thank god SP is doing everything she can for the people. Unlike the dog**** DOJ.

will25u said:

---

---

Nothing burger or not, you can't fault her conviction. Love that type of talk!

will25u said:

---

---

Let's see what you got, Sidney. Screw the haters.

will25u said:

---

---

"and other Republican candidates"

Wow, so if this turns out to be true, it will have not only impacted the Presidential race but the House and Senate as well.

I'm sure John James is watching this closely.

Given how much she has gone after Dominion, this is probably one of the reasons why she's on her own now.

Let's hope she doesn't have an accident.

SLAM said:

---

Given how much she has gone after Dominion, this is probably one of the reasons why she's on her own now.

---

Ok, he makes plenty of assertions about why this is logical and imperative etc. But can anyone here connect the dots because I can't. Why is it better if she's filing these lawsuits separately from the campaign? It's not common sense and frankly I don't yet get it.

neil88 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Given how much she has gone after Dominion, this is probably one of the reasons why she's on her own now.

---

Ok, he makes plenty of assertions about why this is logical and imperative etc. But can anyone here connect the dots because I can't. Why is it better if she's filing these lawsuits separately from the campaign? It's not common sense and frankly I don't yet get it.

---

I think the idea is that she's fighting for the Republic, and the integrity of the American people's free elections, and not just President Trump. It's an effort to be seen not as a Trump team member with him winning being her ultimate end, but rather someone who is trying to expose corruption and "letting the chips fall where they may".

I actually appreciate the approach. As much as I love DJT, this is not about him, and I think they all know that.

I wonder the same thing, and the one thing I can come up with is that she evidence that strongly implicates some people with names that we will all recognized and, if true, the ramifications of such truly will be biblical...

Like armed conflict biblical...

The campaign doesn't want to be tied directly to that for the sake of the Republic in the long run...

SLAM said:

---

Given how much she has gone after Dominion, this is probably one of the reasons why she's on her own now.

---

If Trump fired people out of the agencies, the next president could simply re-hire them. If SP is successful at exposing them for treason, they can be blocked for life...

Another thing about being independent is that she is not limited to the schedule set forth in the Constitution. If she has what she claims, then exposing corruption shouldn't be rushed to be completed prior to the the meeting of the EC.

I hope that citizens are for free and fair elections whether or not they vote Republican or Democrat.

neil88 said:

---

Ok, he makes plenty of assertions about why this is logical and imperative etc. But can anyone here connect the dots because I can't. Why is it better if she's filing these lawsuits separately from the campaign? It's not common sense and frankly I don't yet get it.

---

It makes perfect sense and BuddysBud nails it. This is about more than just the election and will continue after that part has been resolved. She's got enough to get the election fixed PLUS get people like Soros (*fingers crossed*) taken down and needs the timetable to get it done without election date restrictions.

BuddysBud said:

---

Another thing about being independent is that she is not limited to the schedule set forth in the Constitution. If she has what she claims, then exposing corruption shouldn't be rushed to be completed prior to the the meeting of the EC.

I hope that citizens are for free and fair elections whether or not they vote Republican or Democrat.

---

Democrats are for "free and fair election " only if that means Biden wins and Orange Man loses. But if not-free and unfair elections are what it takes to accomplish that, they're OK with that, too.

I think this also gives them two bites at the apple on some court cases. She can file "on behalf of the disenfranchised voters", while Trump's team can file on behalf of the candidate. If a judge rules against Sidney sayin that only a candidate has standing, then Trump can join the case, and vice versa.

Back to Pennsylvania. Just a reminder of how state election law was violated:

Quote:

---

Election officials clearly violated the law by inspecting mail-in ballots before November 3. According to Pennsylvania's election rules, county election boards were required to "safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers" until pre-canvassing legally began at 7 a.m. on Election Day.

Not only were an unknown number of mail-in ballots mishandled by election workers days before the official start date, election observers were not present at the premature inspections.
The state's election code clearly states:

Quote:

---

The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o'clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting. A county board of elections shall provide at least forty-eight hours' notice of a pre-canvass meeting by publicly posting a notice of a pre-canvass meeting on its publicly accessible Internet website. One authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.

---

Roughy 2.5 million Pennsylanians voted absentee in the general election; nearly 2 million of those votes were cast for Joe Biden. One analysis found rejection rates for Pennsylvania mail-in ballots was 30 times lower this year compared to 2016.

---

Quote:

---

Rules were changed at the last minute, ballot "curing" guidance inconsistently applied before and after Election Day, and none of the results in other races are in line with a decisive Biden victory.

---

Biden's coattails were virtually non-existent. Even rising stars in the Dem party went down decisively.

Quote:

---

Take, for example, the fact that Pennsylvania's incumbent state treasurera Democratwas soundly defeated by a Republican challenger.

Joe Torsella, considered a 2022 U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate, lost by nearly 80,000 votes. "Torsella's loss marks the first time since 1994 that a Republican beat an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder and caps a brutal election cycle for Pennsylvania Democrats in down-ballot races," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on November 11.

---

Quote:

---

Biden received nearly 224,000 more votes than Torsella; the difference between Donald Trump and Torsella's Republican opponent was less than 90,000 votes

---

That's a pretty damn big difference.

Quote:

---

A Republican also won Pennsylvania's auditor general's race by nearly 200,000 votes.

In the state's 17th Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Conor Lamb barely survived an upset by Republican Sean Parnell in a race most experts rated as a secure Democratic hold.

---

Quote:

---

And in an even bigger shock, Frank Dermody, the Democratic minority leader of the Pennsylvania state legislature, lost the seat he occupied for 30 years to a Republican.

---

Thirty year incumbent? Still no signs of a blue wave in the down ballot races in PA.

Quote:

---

In 2020 the mood of the Pennsylvania electorateand the country in generalclearly favored Republicans, which makes Biden's 80,000-vote advantage over the president dubious at best, illegitimate at worse.

---

Quote:

---

But Pennsylvania Republicans aren't giving up yet. Parnell and U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) just filed a lawsuit that claimed Act 77, the law signed in 2019 by Democratic Governor Tom Wolf to extensively relax the state's mail-in voting rules, including a "no excuse needed" provision, is unconstitutional. "Mail-in voting, in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority."

---

Not sure that's a winning argument nor what the remedy would be but we'll see.

Quote:

---

And it's still unclear whether a ruling by the Democratic-majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court that relied on federal "social distancing" guidelines to justify keeping Republican election observers several feet away from vote canvassers in Philadelphia will go any further. Last week, the court laughably ruled that, although observers could not determine whether mail-in envelopes and ballots were being correctly validated by election workers, "given that observers are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots, we conclude . . . that the Board of Elections has complied with the observation requirements."

Preposterous.

---

LINK

None of this is passing the smell test.

aggiehawg said:

---

Back to Pennsylvania. Just a reminder of how state election law was violated:

Quote:

---

Election officials clearly violated the law by inspecting mail-in ballots before November 3. According to Pennsylvania's election rules, county election boards were required to "safely keep the ballots in sealed or locked containers" until pre-canvassing legally began at 7 a.m. on Election Day.

Not only were an unknown number of mail-in ballots mishandled by election workers days before the official start date, election observers were not present at the premature inspections.
The state's election code clearly states:

Quote:

---

The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o'clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting. A county board of elections shall provide at least forty-eight hours' notice of a pre-canvass meeting by publicly posting a notice of a pre-canvass meeting on its publicly accessible Internet website. One authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed.

---

Roughy 2.5 million Pennsylanians voted absentee in the general election; nearly 2 million of those votes were cast for Joe Biden. One analysis found rejection rates for Pennsylvania mail-in ballots was 30 times lower this year compared to 2016.

---

Quote:

---

Rules were changed at the last minute, ballot "curing" guidance inconsistently applied before and after Election Day, and none of the results in other races are in line with a decisive Biden victory.

---

Biden's coattails were virtually non-existent. Even rising stars in the Dem party went down decisively.

Quote:

---

Take, for example, the fact that Pennsylvania's incumbent state treasurera Democratwas soundly defeated by a Republican challenger.

Joe Torsella, considered a 2022 U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate, lost by nearly 80,000 votes. "Torsella's loss marks the first time since 1994 that a Republican beat an incumbent Democratic statewide officeholder and caps a brutal election cycle for Pennsylvania Democrats in down-ballot races," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on November 11.

---

Quote:

---

Biden received nearly 224,000 more votes than Torsella; the difference between Donald Trump and Torsella's Republican opponent was less than 90,000 votes

---

That's a pretty damn big difference.

Quote:

---

A Republican also won Pennsylvania's auditor general's race by nearly 200,000 votes.

In the state's 17th Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Conor Lamb barely survived an upset by Republican Sean Parnell in a race most experts rated as a secure Democratic hold.

---

Quote:

---

And in an even bigger shock, Frank Dermody, the Democratic minority leader of the Pennsylvania state legislature, lost the seat he occupied for 30 years to a Republican.

---

Thirty year incumbent? Still no signs of a blue wave in the down ballot races in PA.

Quote:

---

In 2020 the mood of the Pennsylvania electorateand the country in generalclearly favored Republicans, which makes Biden's 80,000-vote advantage over the president dubious at best, illegitimate at worse.

---

Quote:

---

But Pennsylvania Republicans aren't giving up yet. Parnell and U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) just filed a lawsuit that claimed Act 77, the law signed in 2019 by Democratic Governor Tom Wolf to extensively relax the state's mail-in voting rules, including a "no excuse needed" provision, is unconstitutional. "Mail-in voting, in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority."

---

Not sure that's a winning argument nor what the remedy would be but we'll see.

Quote:

---

And it's still unclear whether a ruling by the Democratic-majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court that relied on federal "social distancing" guidelines to justify keeping Republican election observers several feet away from vote canvassers in Philadelphia will go any further. Last week, the court laughably ruled that, although observers could not determine whether mail-in envelopes and ballots were being correctly validated by election workers, "given that observers are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots, we conclude . . . that the Board of Elections has complied with the observation requirements."

Preposterous.

---

LINK

None of this is passing the smell test.

---

My question is why hasn't the Trump Campaign brought up these points yet? Or why hasn't the SCOTUS case been brought before (the one they delayed prior to the election?)

No idea. And I am getting quite frustrated by the lack of action. I imagine so is Alito, since he was given the middle finger by the PA Sec of State.

aggiehawg said:

---

No idea. And I am getting quite frustrated by the lack of action. I imagine so is Alito, since he was given the middle finger by the PA Sec of State.

---

Same ... and can't understand why, if they pull a magic out of the hat and file something that includes this I'll be impressed but right now this is their winning case imho (not a lawyer) and no idea why they haven't used it

Well, if anything is going to happen I think it will be this week. Plenty of talk about "epic" and "shocking" lawsuits. We're ready to see it. . . .Give us something to get behind.

Cepe said:

---

Well, if anything is going to happen I think it will be this week. Plenty of talk about "epic" and "shocking" lawsuits. We're ready to see it. . . .Give us something to get behind.

---

this week is a loss.. it would have to be next week.

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

Looks like we have gibberish to back up the known.

Liberals are lying cheating Satanic worshipping pedophile scum?

Yes, and godless

law-apt-3g said:

---

Looks like we have gibberish to back up the known.

---

His point about an algo not doing that (decreasing the total vote count) caught my attention.

aggiehawg said:

---

Virginia has some total vote issues, it would appear.

Quote:

---

Additionally, AT's Andrea Widburg, on November 16 in "There may have been massive voter fraud in Virginia", noted strange happenings in the vote totals and allocations in the wee hours of November 4. I have read the JSON code provided by the New York Times (see below), and I concur.

---

Quote:

---

Translating the code in the graphic above, we see that at 11:03 PM EST on November 3, total votes were 2,724,165, and Trump had 1,419,290 votes (52.1%), Biden had 1.258,564 votes (46.2%), other candidates had 46,311 votes (1.4%).

Between 11:14 and 11:42 came a big Biden vote dump. At 11:43, when the dump had ended, total votes were 3,368,181, and Trump had 1,512,627 votes (45.8%) and Biden had 1,771,663 votes (52.6%). During this half-hour period when the fraudsters switched the lead from Trump to Biden, Trump gained 93,337 votes (a 6.58% increase), and Biden gained 513,099 votes (a 40.77% increase). That is, there were about 5.5 Biden votes for every Trump vote during this interval.

Before the dump, during the heat of the count, Trump votes were rolling in at the rate of almost 8,000 per minute. After the dump (in the half-hour that followed), Trump votes accumulated at the rate of about 1,900 per minute. During the dump, Trump votes piled up at the rate of 2300 per minute, so it appears to me that those Trump votes were being counted more-or-less honestly, without any "votes switched" or "votes lost". So, Biden's outsized vote tally I rate as "votes added", and by my calculation this means about 479,337 fraudulent votes were created for Biden.

---

Quote:

---

Now we come to the real craziness that happened just after midnight on November 4. Here is the JSON code from the New York Times between 12:04 AM and 12:01 PM EST:

---

Quote:

---

And here is my line-by line description of the "events" that the code identifies. I've numbered these lines so I can refer back to them:

1. 12:04 AM, total votes 3,524,459; Trump 1,617,727 votes (45.9%), Biden 1,846,817 votes (52.4%).
2. 12:07 AM, total votes 3,572,807; Trump, 1,643,491 votes (46.0%), Biden 1,872,151 votes (52.4%).
3. 12:12 AM, total votes 3,199,165; Trump, 1,605,981 votes (50.2%), Biden 1,541,998 votes (48.2%).
4. 12:26:21 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
5. 12:26:48 AM, total votes 3,782,386; Trump, 1,758,890 votes (46.5%), Biden 1,963,058 votes (51.9%).
6. 12:30 AM, total votes 3,390,813; Trump, 1,678,452 votes (49.5%), Biden 1,654,717 votes (48.8%).
7. 12:38 AM, total votes 3,439,609; Trump, 1,699,167 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,685,408 votes (49.0%).
8. 12:42 AM, total votes 3,441,979; Trump, 1,700,338 votes (49.4%), Biden 1,686,570 votes (49.0%).
9. 12:43 AM, total votes 3,442,999; Trump, 1,700,841 votes (49.4%) Biden 1,687,070 votes (49.0%).
10. 12:58 AM, total votes 3,488,507; Trump, 1,709,368 votes (49.0%), Biden 1,719,834 votes (49.3%).
11. 1;34 AM, total votes 3,498,592; Trump, 1,717,808 votes (49.1%), Biden 1,724,806 votes (49.3%).
12. 2:17 AM, total votes 3,894,363; Trump, 1,795,301 votes (46.1%), Biden 2,032,857 votes (52.2%).
13. 4:00 AM, total votes 4,157,392; Trump, 1,916,558 votes (44.8%), Biden 2,224,204 votes (53.5%).
14. 4:59 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).
15. 8:02 AM, total votes 4,312,181; Trump, 1,927,545 votes (44.7%), Biden 2,315,641 votes (53.7%).

---

Quote:

---

But this fraudulent maneuver had two problems. First, it was hard to believe, a sudden vote swing of 4.5% in just 8 minutes; and second, those half-million fake Biden votes might show more "votes" cast than there were registered voters to cast them, making the fraud immediately obvious. So the crooks had to lower the overall vote total to bring it more into line with the 2016 and prior presidential elections.

In Line 2 you see what was probably the running count of the total votes before the fakers got to work -- 3,572,807 votes.

In Line 3, at 12:12 AM, the fraud began, by calling up data that looks like was from an hour earlier. Total votes suddenly shrank to 3,199,165, a loss of 373,462 votes.

---

Quote:

---

In an honest election the vote totals never go backwards. They always get larger, because votes are continually being counted and added to the totals. This is prima facie evidence of fraud being committed, by humans directly intervening in the tabulation of votes, in real time. Software "algorithms" don't work this way; the do their dirty work surreptitiously, in small increments.

---

Quote:

---

However, the old data in Line 3 also flipped the election back to Trump (50.2%) from Biden (48.2%) -- definitely not what the crooks wanted. Also, from Line 2 to Line 3 Biden lost 37,510 votes, and it was important to the fraudsters to recover those. So in Lines 4 and 5 they got to work, restoring Biden's lead (51.9%) by adding 421,060 Biden votes compared to Trump's (46.5%) additional 152,909 votes.

But this action inflated the overall vote total to 3,782,386, which re-created the problem of too many total votes. So the crooks backtracked. They "deleted" Line 5 by "restoring" the data in Line 4. If you look at Line 4 and Line 6 (highlighted in yellow), you will see that they have identical data, except for the timestamp.

---

More here

Thoughts?

---

My thought is that this is the kind of "evidence" that makes fraud plainly apparent to a reasonable person in the absence of a clear explanation from the Virginia SoS about why the vote count went down during the counting.
The problem is that if you try to tell people there was fraud, they say "show me the evidence". When you give them something like this, they say "I am not going to read all that, break it down into something I can understand". When you say "there was fraud", they go back to "show me the evidence". People who don't want to be convinced won't be, and those who could be convinced already know and don't need that evidence.

aggiehawg said:

---

law-apt-3g said:

---

Looks like we have gibberish to back up the known.

---

His point about an algo not doing that (decreasing the total vote count) caught my attention.

---

kind of fits with what Sidney Powell said as well, that Trump got so many votes that he broke the algorithm. They then have to go in manually.

This is the type of stuff that gives me the most hope about Dominion switching votes. To play devil's advocate here though. The NYT posted data will absolutely be questions as to whether it is accurate or not. Its not hard to call it into questions especially if the data from Dominion has been altered or deleted to take care of the discrepancies. Presenting the same data set that show different data but one is from Dominion while the other is NYT. I can tell you which one the media will run with, but which one would a judge follow.

I am not a code guy but maybe one of the code monkeys here can weight in on how/if you can easily trace changes code data like this. I am sure this is a much more complicated question than it seems.


Edit: After looking at it more on the surface this looks just like an error. And I can guarantee that it will be explained off as one. Now how VA plans to explain an error of 300k+ votes randomly getting added and then deleted in a 4min span. I have no idea.

Carrots gets the last laugh

That's not code. I believe that's output from a real-time voting system to media systems in a way that they can process it to show pretty graphs on web pages and TV. It seems TNYT chose to publish the raw data that other media should have as well.

RedHand said:

---

This is the type of stuff that gives me the most hope about Dominion switching votes. To play devil's advocate here though. The NYT posted data will absolutely be questions as to whether it is accurate or not. Its not hard to call it into questions especially if the data from Dominion has been altered or deleted to take care of the discrepancies. Presenting the same data set that show different data but one is from Dominion while the other is NYT. I can tell you which one the media will run with, but which one would a judge follow.

I am not a code guy but maybe one of the code monkeys here can weight in on how/if you can easily trace changes code data like this. I am sure this is a much more complicated question than it seems.

---

Instead of Dominion, the manual manipulation was being done by Edison? They get the raw data and then "format" it in some manner.

The decrease in total votes and then repeating the same numbers with just different time stamps might have been done by Edison?

No one is formally making inquiries into Virginia AFAIK. But this info warrants further investigation. If Virginia was going red until someone switched the numbers, that would go a long way to show Americans that Trump did truly win.