will25u said:

---

---

will25u said:

---

---

Chef Demas2020 said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

If true, what does this mean exactly?

---

Chef Demas2020 said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

If true, what does this mean exactly?

---

Richline said:

---

I feel like we are watching the beginning of Atlas Shrugged play out.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Attorneys for both campaigns will be allowed to file legal briefs on the unprocessed, but timely, DMV registration applications by Thursday. Oral arguments on the online voter registration applications will be held Friday at 1 p.m. in Oswego County Supreme Court.
Any remaining legal briefs connected to the judicial review are due on Wednesday, Jan. 20 and final oral arguments will be Friday, Jan. 22 at 11 a.m. before DelConte.
Following the final oral arguments, DelConte is expected to issue a final ruling in writing on the ballots in question. Based on the results of the judge's decision, there should be final election results to certify in New York's 22nd Congressional District, barring appeal.

---

The last two words in that final sentence "barring appeal" are the big caveat. Even if Judge DelConte gets out a final ruling on the same day as the oral arguments, which seems unlikely, one side or the other could still appeal the outcome. And that appeals process could drag on for weeks or more likely for months:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Third Navarro Report is out.

LINK

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This does raise a question, and maybe it's been answered.. but has any analysis like this been done on prior Presidential elections? Perhaps these anomalies aren't anomalies after all, and this is par for an election??

Just playing D.A. here.

---

My understanding is that yes there is always an after action statistical report by various bodies done for a variety of reasons, mostly political but also for demographics, marketing and the like.

So statisticians watching election returns as they are coming in, note immediately when something is anomalous. So when their curiosity gets piqued, they dig further and prepare the charts showing when the anomalies occur, such as sudden spikes in votes and unexplained decrements in votes. It's the latter, the decrements that draw a larger share of their attention because that should never happen in an incremental count.

Some people have tried to dismiss those as human error committed by people inputting data by hand at Sec of State offices, or Edison or even the NYT feeds. That might fly in very small precincts or counties but one of the selling features of the Dominion Voting Systems was that they could eliminate error at the local, county and state side. All machine to machine to machine transfers of data. At precinct level, count is downloaded on memory cards or USBs, transported to county HQs, uploaded, then digitally sent to Sec of States offices.

Everything I have seen about Edison and the NYT feeds say those are also all digitally drawn from Sec of State's websites as vote totals are updated. But no proof has been offered that human error was responsible for all, and there were dozens and dozens such abnormalities.

But let me back up for a second here. I'll pretend that human error could have played a factor wherein the exact number of votes were erroneously put in the wrong candidates' column and was later reversed as in "corrected." But that isn't what the JSON data has indicated in all cases. In fact, what the JSON data has shown was that total votes went down. A simple "correction" would never result in that happening as the vote total would have to stay the same, just reallocated.

See the problem?

FTR: I'm not a computer geek but throughout this process I've learned more about electronic voting machines than I ever wanted to know. QR codes, kinetic artifacts, how paper interacts with machines, and on and on. When I watch or listen to a common sense explanation of what the data is saying to the experts is presented and I'm trying to see what "sounds" off to me, I ask if my gut is on target or not. There are a few posters here who have assisted (or should I say "indulged") my stupid questions and have dumbed it down for me to understand. To whom I am eternally grateful for such. And they know who they are. Thanks again!

---

aggiehawg said:

---

EllisCoAg said:

---

this has been debunked

---

And not allowed on any major platforms making sure few people as possible see it. Same thing with Jovan Pulitzer's latest report on foreign interference in the election.

---

agcrock2005 said:

---

This had to have made you so happy!

---