throwaway32871

I think the people who think that Rudy is afraid of discovery are expecting an email that says something like "We know Dominion machines are on the up and up but can we just make things up?" This email is unlikely to exist.

Discovery on Rudy's side is likely to be boring or need a lot of generous reading to draw a conclusion of defamation.

Discovery on Dominion's side can get interesting. For example, can they prove that some part of the source code did indeed come from that Venezuelan company? If so, what does this mean? Can discovery prove connections between current or former officers and the Venezuelan company? What does that mean? How much of their claims do they need to prove to show that the statements have some basis in fact?

Turns out one of the heads of Dominion was affiliated with Antifa (whatever that means, I don't know.) Could they find that he accessed systems during the night of the election outside of his duties? I dunno.

I think it also turns out that a former Dominion officer went to work for Soros after the election. What does that mean? I dunno.

So I personally think there is a lot more interesting things to be found on the Dominion side.

If there was anything shady going on, they would have to be fucking morons to run it through the company. So chances are, they probably won't find anything.

Let me summarize the article and see if I can make a conclusion:

   - Former Trump official (irrelevant)
   - Could not find anything in the article to support corruption. I agree with this, since charging corruption is very strong.
   - 68% error rates are not really errors. OK
   - Does not look like anyone actually went in there and set a zero. The specific picture is blacked out, so I cannot tell what was happening (I seem to remember an earlier version where it wasn't blacked out, but probably just human memory playing tricks.)

Did I summarize and comment fairly?

Fortunately for you (aha!) I actually was not looking at these things. What I found interesting were the following:

   - Instances of verifiable high rates of adjudication not just here, but elsewhere. There is a clip of an official in some county where they said their adjudication rate was 60% which is excessive and means x% of votes were decided by people in a room somewhere.
   - Deleted log files for 2020 but not 2016 (this was the big one for me, should be unacceptable.)
   - Same ballots giving different results. Admittedly, this could be user error.

Aside from the particulars in 2020, as far as I'm concerned, every single election should be audited to the highest standards possible and I cannot understand why anyone would disagree. This (to me) means adversarial parties trying to convince a third party of their version of the truth with opportunity for rebuttal. I don't feel that actually happened here which worries me overall. What we seem to have is one party says something, the other party takes to the news to offer a rebuttal and no one will be able to fairly hear both sides without piecing together bits of information.

It's for this reason I wish the Supreme court had taken up the case.

It's too difficult to decide credibility with the limited information we have and so the best thing to do is to look at opposing arguments to see which thing makes the most sense logically. In that respect, here is (I believe) the report which shows the numbers put out by the machine are not reliable, at least, and also gives evidence that 2020 log files were deleted whereas 2016 log files were not: https://www.9and10news.com/content/uploads/2020/12/Antrim_Mi...

Next, we know the state's mouthpiece will try to refute that handily, so we take a look at such an article, from Michigan itself:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/14/m...

In particular, pay attention to the confounding of two separate issues to discredit the above forensic report:

> The group previously claimed there were six precincts with more than 120% turnout in the state's election. But its data was incorrect, according to publicly available turnout numbers.

"The group" did not make such claims or at least I could not find any, it was the affiant who did and he is management at the company. I could not actually find the source material on this so I am trusting the article.

Anyway, what is important is what was NOT refuted in the article.

Because, quite possibly, there is where efforts should be focused. These pieces of presumably factual evidence should be refuted by an adversarial party but are not and are just left to be memory holed.

I have not yet found anything specifically refuting the forensics report above. Simply news articles confounding things in what appears to be an effort to discredit findings. Not that I've looked too hard, mind you.

So I'm still wondering... why are 2020 logs missing while 2016 logs remain? Why do the machines give different numbers for the same votes?

These are important questions. Do not think we'll get an answer though.

And for the record, I always found Bush's Diebold election fishy.