Thread by @ErrataRob

Sooo.....

You have two choices:
#1 fall back on the "experts have debunked it". I'm an expert, I've debunked it.
#2 spend considerable amount of time understanding the issue so that you can competently debate it and answer questions, which frankly, isn't worthy your time

The short answer is this: the forensics investigators looked only at the C: boot drive, not the D: data drive were records are preserved. Thus, they could not have said whether or not records were correctly preserved according to state law.

Secondly, it's not a valid forensics report, because among other things, they violate forensics ethics by not putting their name on it and redacting information without disclosing the fact of redaction to the reader.

Thirdly, it's bizarre, since it's simply proving what everyone already knows, that the C: boot drive is wiped out in the Trusted Build process. You don't need a report arguing this since Dominion documents that this is exactly what they do.

...indeed, it's inaccurate because it says some files weren't "deleted", when in fact, they all were deleted. Everything is deleted on the C: drive -- records are preserved on the D: drive.

Fourthly, it's bizarre because Tina Peters admits its her job to preserve records by copying them to the D: drive, so the target of here whistleblowing is nobody but herself.

My point is this: you can't debate stupid. The issue is so basic, THEY DIDN'T EXAMINE THE D: DRIVE, that you have to wonder why anybody takes it seriously.
scribd.com/document/52625…

In any event, there's subtext here, what they are really arguing. The underlying argument is their (wrong) claim that all Windows operation-system logs must also be preserved. It's not true, the election records preservation rules don't refer to them.

The reason they argue this is because none of the logs that are preserved show any election hacking anywhere. Thus, their reasoning goes, the evidence of hacking must reside in those junk files that nobody cared to preserve.

One could reasonably argue that more Windows operating system logs should be preserved, in case we need to investigate hacking -- FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS.

But it only works if your are arguing for future elections.

In other words, no Trumpist argued before the 2020 election that Windows system logs should be preserved. They only discovered that argument after the election, when looking for ways to cast doubt on the election.

Yes, it's just like the Maricopa routers. The Trumpist continued inability to find evidence of election hacking takes them to ever crazier extremes. Routers don't contain even data but would cost millions to rip out of networks.

https://twitter.com/larrywright/status/1440750041526779905

The situations are sooo comparable. If you are crazy enough to believe that "the routers" contain data (they don't), then it's not possible to have a rational debate. There's no way for me to refute your claims, because they posit nonsensical things already.