Thread by @bradheath

The witnesses statements that are attached to Powell's Wisconsin election-fraud opus are just .... well, hard to describe.

Exhibit 1 is a recycled declaration from an anonymous Venezuelan who is "of sound mine," but didn't witness anything related to the U.S. election.

Exhibit 17 is a person who thinks it's suspicious that Democrats did better this year in counties where the Republican vote share increased in 2012 and 2016, because obviously that can only go in one direction.

Exhibit 20 is an anonymous guy who used to work for a military intelligence training battalion who seems unaware that Edison Research isn't actually involved in vote-counting. (It's a third-party service that gathers up the results for the public; Reuters uses them.)

Exhibit 22 in Powell's lawsuit is from the guy who until recently ran the official QAnon board, 8kun.

He doesn't actually say that fraud took place in the election, but says it's possible.

Or, possibly, Exhibit 22 is a declaration by the son of Q himself. Or who knows. Definitely by a guy who helped that bananas conspiracy train.
gizmodo.com/wait-did-ron-w…

I'm looking for what the complaint calls Exhibit 17, but obviously that's not docketed under exhibit 17, or under any of the numbers close to 17. So the hunt goes on.

Exhibit 25 is from the expert who found suspicious voting trends in Michigan after mistaking it for Minnesota. He has a chart to show that Milwaukee reporting its vote totals was a "statistically unlikely event" because he doesn't seem to know jurisdictions report separately.

He gets his state geography right this time, but the turnout numbers are waaaaay off. (But he doesn't cite a source for these so who knows.) Turnout in Sheboygan Co. was about 90% this year, up from 86% in 2016. There were not more votes than registered voters.

Exhibit 3 in the Wisconsin lawsuit is a survey tally of whether people requested Arizona absentee ballots.

How could anyone - let alone a court - credit the conclusions of witnesses when, by their own testimony, they are based on so many obviously untrue things?

You can look for yourselves. The docket is here: courtlistener.com/docket/1870208…