There were exactly 0 precincts in MI with 100% or over 100% turnout. This is an easily verifiable fact as the precinct data is available by County. The guy testifying did this repeatedly. He pretended to be giving intelligent data while saying things that are clearly false.
If someone is willing to lie to you about something that is that easy to verify, why would you pay attention to anything else that they say?
Here was another great one from this “expert”. He pretends to do this complicated analysis showing that machines couldn’t possibly count as many ballots as were reported over a short time relying on audience not knowing those counties reported absentee ballots in batches.
In other words, they processed and counted the votes over hours and reported them at once. But he pretends that they must have just counted them during the 15 minutes between when the last set of votes were reported. It’s such blatant nonsense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hilarious. My mentions kept telling me to tune in to the MI Rudy hearing because they had an expert proving the conspiracy. I tune in and some guy BSing with several conspiracies about Dominion that sound super intelligent if you know nothing about the actual topic (40M etc,)
so then one Rep intelligently asks the obvious question: wouldn't a hand recount prove whether the software change ballots?
So OF COURSE, the "expert" then suggested a new conspiracy that they cd have also put in fake paper ballots to match the software change.
Just watch this video of one of the main witnesses at the MI Guliani hearing hysterically ranting about complete nonsense as a Republican legislator tries to ask her a question:
Omg. Powell asked the court in her WISCONSIN lawsuit to get her security camera footage from the location where they processed Detroit (Michigan) ballots. #HeadDesk
1) I think Roberts has taken a bit of unfair beating on Twitter. He seems to agree with the majority that Cuomo likely violated 1st amendment and temporary relief would be appropriate but argues it's moot since Cuomo already changed his restrictions.
The other conservatives on the bench argue they needed to take action now anyway because there is the constant threat that Cuomo could reimpose the restrictions and they shouldn't have to come back to stop him. That's not a substantive disagreement on whether Cuomo was wrong.
A bunch of it is rehashing old stuff that's been thrown out in every other suit (Affidavits of people thinking something is suspicious, complaining about no signature match during recounts - which would have been impossible) etc.
Aside from that, there is a request to basically invalidate the election because they don't think GA's SoS and Governor should have the power to set any election rules since that power belongs to the state legislature. That's obviously not going anywhere.
Not only is it wrong, but the time to file a complaint about the rules that were set out long before the election would have been before the election.
Sweden has been hit by a second wave, which has led them to impose significant restrictions they previously avoided, and to admit their initial approach to the virus did not yield expected results. Their deaths per capita still way exceed their neighbors.
A lot of mistakes have been made during this ordeal. The initial lockdowns were excessive and should have been better targeted. But the U.S. would have faced disaster if we had adopted Sweden's approach, and those who advocated for it were just wrong.
See some of the responses here. People were absolutely convinced that Sweden wouldn't face a second wave and their economy would fae much better (it didn't):