‘“significant probability”
Sadly I don’t think that will stand up in Court.’
I appreciate your concern; but, I hope that is not a problem.
In science this is the long-standing gold standard of evidence for drawing a conclusion. All other evidence is less acceptable.
Can the legal profession, in a technological era when other evidence is convincingly faked and subject to doubt, not accept scientific indicators?
All acceptances of evidence are by probability of truthfulness.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/11/do-trumps-lawyers-know-what-they-are-doing.php
They got the wrong state....it was MN not MI
OK... I will try..
the machines take about 10 seconds to process a vote...
that is 6 votes per machine per minute...
figure 6 machines per precinct times 4 precincts...
24 machines at 6 votes per minutes is 144 votes per minute..
using 2.5 hours processing time, these machines can tabulate a total of 8,640.00 votes per hour...
total of 21,600 votes...
384,733 votes were tabulated by these 4 precincts in that time...
384,733 divided by 24 machines is 16,030 votes per machine..
16,030 divided by 2.5 is 106.86 votes per minute per machines...
mathematically impossible
I remember a law student friend of mine talking about possible and probable.
Anything is possible. The law is based on what is most probable. “Beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Fingerprints on the murder weapon might mean you handled the weapon - but it does not mean you are the murderer. Yet - if the circumstances and witnesses say otherwise - you’re going to jail.
Statistical improbability of vote calculations and eyewitness affidavits that back up the manipulation show that it is not only possible to perpetrate the fraud, but probable that fraud occurred.