Mathetical impossibilities doesn’t count as evidence in a court though.
YES it’s impossible, we know there is noway tens of thousands of batches of mail in ballots in the wee hours of the morning were counted they ALL could have went to one man (Biden). Bullshit, it’s not possible, but is it evidence in court? Probably not.
I agree. Makes me sad, but I think it’s true.
We are in an age where video tape of Biden bragging that he strong-armed Ukraine was not convincing. Audio, Video, and email records of Hunter Biden were not convincing.
The bar is pretty high. It just is.
Holding up some math and saying “This doesn’t seem likely” is pretty weak sauce.
Actually it does because it shows there is a dead body somewhere. Next you need to dig to find the body and then the culprit. But is is a valid inidicator of fraud.
yes we need hard evidence-we all know they stuffed
Richard Baris at Peoples Pundit found this:
“Just under 10k confirmed dead returned absentee ballots in Michigan. We’re done, for now.
While I’m open to the idea some of these have been rejected, I’m not open to any outright dismissal they all were rejected.
This was a small, tested listed that suggests irregs are plenty.”
https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
If they know which voting districts were mathematically impossible that should be probable cause to trigger an audit. If there were a lot of mail in ballots, there’s a paper trail for that. Someone had to Inspect the ballot and record the vote.
As far as electronic machines are concerned, I’m not sure how that could be audited, but someone with experience with the machines could probably figure out if there’s tampering.
But it appears that mail ins were the primary means of fraud and involves A preponderance of Dem votes.
Let’s see if mail ins were recorded and then destroyed.
The final courts of appeal are not the judicial courts but the state legislatures and their selection of the electors, so a PR campaign is important. Even in the judicial courts a public opinion can also be important.
Tell that to the people who have been convicted of cybercrimes.
I’m no attorney although I do recall a discussion of evidence in one of my college electives.
Mathematical models fall into the classification of “demonstrative evidence” which may, in fact, be introduced at trial, subject to the trial judge’s consideration of whether or not it is prejudicial. Although having no probative value — that is, while the model itself does not provide “proof” of a crime, it is often used to explain, supplement and clarify the matter being adjudicated.
So, models may be introduced as evidence; however, the model itself is not evidence of guilt or innocence.
There are witnesses who you can put under oath. Nobody is going to want to go to jail over hiding the vote.
How many liberal discrimination cases have been won on lesser statistical evidence??? Loads of legal precedents the left would be loath to abandon in what's going to, by then, look like a losing fight. Admittedly Thomas et al may not think much of the body of victimology law but I doubt it will be on the legal hot seat this time. And in any case the math here will be much stronger.
Showing a “preponderance of evidence” is the requirement, although I’m not a lawyer. It doesn’t have to be “one thing”.
“ Mathetical impossibilities doesn’t count as evidence in a court though.”
Yes it does.
From a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Texas, and some Federal Courts.
So if your town, population 14,234, has an election, and there are 50,000 ballots (arguably a mathematical impossibility), this evidence does not count?
Courts are magicians when it comes to getting the wrong outcome, totally agreed. They are also institutions in the public eye. The court's credibility is on the line. Comes with the job.
I agree that statistical analysis is probably not legally admissible evidence to prove election fraud, but it may be enough to establish the equivalent of probable cause in a criminal case.
Court’s are allowed to make inferences based on expert testimony and scientific evidence. Who has the expertise to really understand DNA, evidence which is given the weight once accorded to scripture?
I have been hearing murmurs about Benford’s law anomalies, which arouses suspicions. Until these questions are put to rest no one is obliged to offer Biden any iota of respect as president.
Consider the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard that applies in criminal trials. In civil matters the standard is LOWER: preponderance of the evidence.
So let's, for arguments sake, use beyond a reasonable doubt. In Statistics there are numerous tests which express a confidence that a set of data is to be trusted. In court experts would be called upon to testify whether a set of data is to be trusted. If these no so-called experts can be found to testify that there is a greater chance that the such data would be observed even one time in a million, then it certainly would be beyond a reasonable doubt that the data is not to be trusted.
ML/NJ