Election 2020 - Incontrovertible evidence of FRAUD

The corporate press has been beating the drum to 'zero evidence'. Now that this is out we will see how they will describe it.

My money is on 'minor evidence' or 'unreasonable' or 'limited' as adjectives used to describe what is now admitted evidence of fraud in the 2020 election in Michigan.

This does two things.  It means that Trump won Michigan.  It also means that there is now inarguable and incontrovertible evidence of fraud.

The Texas case is a huge deal.  I think there will be more of this.  I was putting a 70% chance of Trump going back to the White House.  Now it's higher.

The Texas case was 30 pages long.  Now it's 49.  The reply to the 4 states by Texas is incredible.  Here's a sample - how they responded to Georgia:

------------

B. Georgia’s critiques of the evidence are false.

Georgia argues that the “[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged” as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) (“Wood”). Georgia Br. 4. Georgia’s reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 13-19. (App. 158a-60a). Georgia’s rejection rate comparison is therefore inapposite. Id.

Specifically, the district court in Wood cited to “ECF 33-6” (id. at n.30) which is the affidavit of Chris Harvey, Georgia Director of Elections. First, the Harvey Affidavit itself does not cite any evidence for signature rejection rates; rather, it relies solely upon a complaint in an unrelated action. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. (App. 158a-59a) (citing Democratic Party of Georgia et al. v. Raffensperger). Second, as explained by Dr. Cicchetti, the Harvey Affidavit relies on 2018 data which does not provide an accurate comparison with a presidential election year. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. (App. 160a-62a). More importantly, the Harvey affidavit discusses absentee ballots—not mail-in ballots at issue here and as analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti. Mail-in ballots are subject to much higher rejection rates. Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis. . Id. at ¶¶ 16-18. (App. 159a-60a). In short, Georgia’s attempt to rebut Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis fails. Id. ¶ 22. (App. 161a-62a).

--------------

The reactions to the other 3 states are just as scathing.

This is getting intense.

---------------------------------------------------------------

My Udemy classes are here - extremely low price and you have them forever.

I also sell custom made mugs like this one here on Amazon.  I'll do personalized orders as well. They are all made in the United States - in Pennsylvania.

All of the mugs are here on Gearbubble.