THREADETTE: Because I am not afraid of the truth and want to ensure I did not make a mistake in my analysis of the data, I read the Post's "fact check" below. Several points. First, the Post completely ignored the MIT engineers amazing report on the analysis of signatures. 1/
https://twitter.com/realedwardallen/status/1442524222253723651
2/ Second, as is often the case, the Post frames it as "fraud", and ignores illegal voting. Third, the author is ignorant on election law that doesn't require you to identity that the illegal votes went to Trump v. Biden: question is whether # of illegal votes = margin
3/ in many states. Fourth, the commercial database Post poo-poos is actually more reliable than merely change of address database and contrary to Post's claim, those figures have stood up in GA. thefederalist.com/2021/07/09/new…
4/ Fifth, I agree re the Post's point about same names/birth year, which is why I did not include it in my areas of concern. Six, Post misdirects by focusing on already properly debunked issues to try to make legitimate issues seem screwy too.
5/ Seven, Post is correct that the audit didn't prove Trump won Arizona (and frankly you can't undue Biden's election, so that's silly) or that enough illegal or fraudulent votes exist = maring b/c auditors didn't have access to the evidence necessary to establish that.
6/6 (margin) But that the Post doesn't give a damn is a problem. So go ahead, read the Post and read my article, as mine is head and shoulders above the supposed standard-bearers of journalism & I'd debate their author any time (I don't need a nap.) thefederalist.com/2021/09/27/ari…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
