Thread by @Orly_licious

⚖️ Welcome everybody! 🧵 It's Tue Oct 3 & the #EastmanTrial, CA Bar Disbarment Trial of #JohnEastman, begins 1pm EDT. Today's plan is to resume with #ElectionDenier John Droz. Judge Roland said ending today at 6:30pm EDT. 9/29 ended with disasterous Eastman witness, Joe Blehar.

This is a California Bar Court. After the verdict, Eastman can appeal to the CA Supreme Court. CA Bar Court does not allow archives or rebroadcasting, that's why I'm livetweeting -- we need a record of this. Watch on Zoom here (no account needed): app.zoom.us/wc/97985435232…

On the Supreme Court's first day back, they DENIED John Eastman's appeal about #Jan6th. One of Fogbow's members went to school with Judge David O. Carter, so we paid close attention to his ruling that “The illegality of the [Eastman & Trump] plan was obvious.” #EastmanTrial

In addition to this Disbarment Trial, John Eastman must defend against an indictment in Georgia. He tried to mitigate Judge Carter's ruling at SCOTUS but failed once again. It's a FAFO (Fu*k Around & Find Out) for the ages. #EastmanTrial

To be clear: My livetweets contain my opinions. MAGAs trying to subvert & overturn elections makes me angry. Most Republicans are honest people. We may disagree but try to find bipartisan solutions, unlike low-information people who spew hatred & lies.

⚖️ This week's #EastmanTrial Schedule: Tue 10/3: John Droz cross, Kurt Olsen direct & cross, Stan Young direct. (end by 6:30pm EDT). Wed 10/4: Joe Fried, Young, Doug Frank?. Eastman10/6? More Blehar & Joe Oltmann unclear. Patrick Colbeck is rebuttal "if at all". All are 1pm EDT.

🧵Catch up on Livetweets of the John Eastman Disbarment Trial #EastmanTrial
John Yoo Sep 12:

Garland Favorito Sep 13:

Garland Sep 14:

Sep 15 Garland's Disastrous Cross 🏴‍☠️ threadreaderapp.com/thread/1701642…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1702008…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1702387…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1702726…

Last week's #EastmanTrial livetweets:
9/26 John Yoo
9/27 John Yoo & Joseph Fried
9/28 John Droz
9/29 Kurt Olsen & Ray Blehar threadreaderapp.com/thread/1706716…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707086…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707441…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707797…

#EastmanTrial Here's background on John Droz & Ray Blehar from our friends at @weareoversight. More about witnesses is at . americanoversight.org/in-the-documen…

Last time we saw him, Judge Yvette Roland said John Droz does not have the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis regarding subject matter. Some may find it interesting, but it does not qualify him to offer an opinion. #EastmanTrial

Problem for #EastmanTrial is witnesses are unqualified cranks. That's all he could get. Nobody reputable would support his plan to subvert & overturn the 2020 election. They are all percipient (what they saw) vs. expert witnesses. Most of what Droz testified about was thrown out.

🚨 Here's the beginning of an analysis you won't find anywhere but here & Fogbow. It's by W. Kevin Vicklund: "Debunking John Droz's Michigan Report". With REAL data & facts, Kevin obliterates Droz's Fantasyland report. #EastmanTrial

Part 2 of W. Kevin Vicklund's "Debunking John Droz's Michigan Report". If John Droz, Ray Blehar, Joe Fried et al used real data analysts & folks with election experience, this wouldn't happen. But they didn't want facts; they wanted to validate confirmation biases. #EastmanTrial

Here are the links from W. Kevin Vicklund's great report:
Time series for Michigan:
Michigan 2020 Voter Analysis Report:
Security Debrief (Seeming Discrepancies in Voter Data Fuel for Disinformation) static01.nyt.com/elections-asse…
scribd.com/document/48761…
securitydebrief.com/2020/11/14/see…

Here we GO! Recess slide is up! #EastmanTrial Unlike grifters, liars & unqualified fantasists howling in the wind about info they misinterpret & X users who eagerly spread disinformation fantasies to fuel their confirmation biases, most Americans know these people are clueless.

I'm glad I put a lot of reference material up... it's 1:45pm EDT & while the "The Court is in Recess" slide is up, the trial hasn't resumed. As soon as it does, looking forward to letting you know what's happening! It's gotta be soon, they have a short day today till 6:30pm EDT).

2pm EDT & we're still waiting for the resumption of #EastmanTrial: Disbarment Trial of John Eastman. The "Recess" slide has been up for 45 mins. Musical "entertainment" while waiting: Eric Trump's wife Lara covered a Tom Petty song, "I Won't Back Down". 🥳

Here he go! Tech problems. We're back & talking scheduling & housekeeping. More trial dates appear to be on 10/16, 10/17-19. More scheduling later. Duncan Carling of CA Bar has objections on Droz, Blehar & Stan Young (not on yet). #EastmanTrial

Carling is objecting to the "Reports" Droz, Blehar & soon Stan Young are testifying about. Carling notes that in his depo, Young (who is qualified as an expert) would only offer his opinion on the "Contrast Analysis" report. Young is set for tomorrow. Carling brings up scope.

Judge Roland is reminding John Eastman's lawyer, Randall "Randy" Miller that John Droz & Ray Blehar are percipient (what they saw) not expert witnesses. Eastman's team didn't/couldn't get any other experts. Droz's continued cross is next! #EastmanTrial

Contacting Droz. I'd just like to say how much I appreciate you all joining in and following the #EastmanTrial with me. It's a fascinating but extremely complex case vis-à-vis data, CA Bar trial rules, & ethics charge litigation. I'm doing my best to give you an accurate summary.

John Droz is being sworn. Again, he's in front of a pretty late, but it puts him in the dark. Randall Carling for CA Bar resumes the cross examination. They finished with Droz saying almost no election in US history is reliable, esp in the "last decade". 🤠

DC: What evidence of 10 yr change?
JD: We didn't research... my opinion
DC: If no research, is that a "educated guess"?
JD: Yes
DC: What education?
JD: Read most reports, "people said"...
#EastmanTrial

DC: Election integrity of which election?
JD: Election system is "porous"
DC: On what basis?
JD: Read like 100 reports... "people said"... Our "Recommendation Report"...
DC: From last week? (This report was thrown out)
Getting the exhibit.
#EastmanTrial

Droz is already getting confrontational and testy.
JD: The "Recommendation Report" includes bipartisan "blah blah blah"... 2012 Pew said elections are "inaccurate, costly & inefficient". (#ElectionDeniers never accept that things change... election tech & methods have improved).

DC: Don't these reports conclude there was no fraud?
JD: Well...
DC: Since no forensic audits have been performed, you mean no election has been reliable?
DC: Perhaps
DC: How do you know that the Contrast Report found fraud?
JF: We weren't looking for fraud. (Word games.)

Carling turns to their PA Voter Report to deal with the "fraud issue". Carling asks why Droz & Co didn't look at contrasts for 2016 v 2012 for example. "If there were 50 years of this, would it still be an anomaly?"
JD: No.
DC: In the last 3 years since report, why not check?

JF: Busy, have a life, didn't know if it was important...
DC: Do you believe the techniques & patterns out of the ordinary that Election Integrity Group used are useful?
Judge: Your personal knowledge. (Droz argues) Get over that.
JF: That is a statistical question.
#EastmanTrial

Judge: Answer.
DC: Did techniques find patterns "out of the ordinary" if didn't check other elections?
JF: Other ways besides historical patterns.
DC: Like?
JF: Not questioning PhD's reasoning.
DC: Having someone with election experience with voter data useful?
JF: No I did not.

Carling now turns to the Michigan Report which Kevin analyzed above.
DC: Do you know if MI requires Voter ID?
JF: Don't remember.
DC: About non-citizen voting?
JF: Didn't look.
DC: Felons voting?
JF: Voter ID can help...
DC: So all a hunch?
JF: Well...

Duncan Carling: Did John Eastman ask about your team's qualifications? Election experience? Your experience analyzing elections? Statistical experience? Reliable methods?
John Droz: Don't recall.
#EastmanTrial

Duncan Carling, CA Bar: Wouldn't challenges on statistics be less helpful with conclusions from people with no experience?
John Droz: Numbers are Numbers. I think not relevant.
DC: Wouldn't specialized knowledge be useful?
JD: I doubt it. 🚀
#EastmanTrial

Duncan Carling is making John Droz look like a fool. It's not difficult. (Sorry about the initial switchups, I'm focused on the testimony.
DC: How did you verify qualifications?
JD: Read CV's...
DC: William Matthew Briggs before 2020?
JD: Has a blog, knew him a few years by 2020

DC: Do you recall his blog postings about Trump suggesting suspending the Constitution for military rule?
JD: No I don't.
DC: Did you research?
JD: Just asked if they wanted to volunteer... good enough for me.
DC: Did your newsletter focus on climate denial?
JD: Yes & still do.

DC moves to Sidney Powell. 🐙
DC: Was the female lawyer who contacted you Sidney Powell?
JD: No
DC: Any data shared? "Direction"? Contact?
JD: No.
Judge: Reports to Sidney or team?
JD: Possibly. (Fishy, punting.)
Cross finished. #EastmanTrial

Redirect by Eastman's lawyer Randall Miller, back to "Contrast Report".
RM: Familiar with Dr. Young's research?
JF: Broke down by state. Democrats said Biden won because of better messaging & marketing -- so it should have been better everywhere. But it wasn't.
#EastmanTrial

RM: Any concerns about Young or Ray Blehar's work on the "Contrast Report"?
JD: Credible, believed it.
JD: Did it by state, let's look...
RM pulls up Alabama.
DC: Objection. Droz not on report, didn't analyze, Young is coming...
Judge sustains. Save it for Young.
#EastmanTrial

RM: "Contrast Report" was 2020 & 2016? JD: Yes.
RM: Definition of "Election Integrity"?
JD: Major components are done accurately & transparently.
RM: Why interested?
JD: Climate denial..who wins.
RM: Non partisan way?
JD: Don't know how registered... picked team without looking.

Randall Miller turns to "Recommendations Report" to try and show John Droz & Co. looked at pre-2020 election info. "This is what I came across". RM: Did you review all? JD: Perused or read all of them... RM: How did you become an "election integrity" expert in 3 yrs from 2020?

John Droz: I'm in Mensa and I'm a GENIUS & learn faster. 🚀 I read many reports quickly & attend many meetings... I'm more knowledgeable than 99.999% of people.
Judge: Not an expert.
RM moves along.
#EastmanTrial

RM: You weren't looking for fraud, right?
JD: No, fraud is a legal word (intent) so we were looking at "anomalies".
RM: Still updating?
JD: Haven't heard from team in a while... as editor I'd do it.
#EastmanTrial

Eastman's lawyer Randall Miller moves to a John Eastman John Droz email between them. He doesn't recall the email but doesn't deny it. "I'm a senior so I don't recollect"...
RM: What's time series data?
JD: Edison data, when entered into system...becomes official...
#EastmanTrial

RM: Eastman refers to "denominator". What does that mean?
JD: What it says.
RM: What about Georgia?
JD: We didn't look at it, but Quinell interested and did it.
RM: Eastman: "If my machine guys are right that sum remained constant..." means?
JD: State elections board keeps it.

Now moves to an email with graphs by Quinell. Judge: How much longer with Droz? RM needs 20 mins more... Carling has maybe 5 more mins of re-cross.
Judge Roland to RM: NO tampering. I must have copies in my binder of exhibits without changes. Redactions made that I don't have.

The Eastman & Droz email is 1/9/21 but is a chain with 1/7/21 info. Judge is noting that times are making this wrong. Carling notes different email addresses too. Another screwup by Randall Carling. They are NOT the same email. RM: Content... Judge: Not the same.
#EastmanTrial

Randall Miller with more fu*kups... leading again and worse, he's screwed up the redactions. Some have, some do not. That's terrible. Is John Eastman's legal team sloppy... or incompetent? #EastmanTrial

Randall Miller is now talking about the Georgia Special Election in 2021. JD says he doesn't know, but thinks Dr. Eric Quinnell (that's correct spelling) created this data. John asks about details. John Droz doesn't remember. DC: It's between Quinnell & Eastman, Droz not in it.

My note: We're still not getting anything that speaks to the 11 ethics charges against Eastman that I see.
Re-cross by Duncan Carling: Was Eastman looking for "flipped votes"?
JD: Don't recall, he thought there was some anomalies like denominators.
Judge: Senate Runoff?
JD: Yes.

DC: Eastman not looking for flipped votes?
JD: Don't know.
DC: Did he request any data before 1/7?
JD: No.
DC: Changes should be uniform? What changes?
JD: Yes. Contrast Report 2016 v 2020.
DC: Basis of belief?
JD: "Common Sense Logic would be my answer."
#EastmanTrial

Carling is dismantling Miller's try to make it seem like John Droz & Co looked at previous elections.
DC: Vote spikes before 2020?
JD: Don't recall
DC: Did you say Edison is official?
JD: State data is official, Edison communicates
DC: Edison's election night data is from states?

DC: Don't think any is from exit polls?
JD: Don't think so.
John Droz has no idea of what he's talking about and that's very, very clear.
Droz is finished.
Judge: LUNCH BREAK! Back with "Blockin' Ray Blehar at 5:45pm EDT. 🦞
#EastmanTrial

As always, @tomryanlaw makes a great point. John Droz is a ridiculous #ElectionDenier who has no business being on a witness stand. Watching RWNJ TV, reading Gateway Pundit & posting blogs do NOT count as election experience, integrity or background.

https://twitter.com/tomryanlaw/status/1709280794731327738

#EastmanTrial Respect for @R5Philly (even if he isn't a GENIUS Mensa like John Droz, but maybe he is 😅 ). He knows this material & his analyses are excellent. Recommend checking his comments here & his feed; he doesn't hesitate to go after the #ElectionDeniers, grifters & liars.

Thanks for following my #EastmanTrial livetweets. 💙 Many asked to Buy Me A Coffee (with the turgid & complex subject matter, I've needed it) as a vote of confidence. Many of you have chipped in & I am grateful. Thanks again. Sending everybody a big hug! buymeacoffee.com/lukejohnson2

While waiting for #EastmanTrial to resume, seeing several Twitter Spaces going on discussing #KevinMcCarthy's overthrow as House Speaker. This is a great site: . Sign up free, just enter the link of a space (live or after) & tell it where to email & voila.twitter.com/i/spaces/1LyxB…

When you have a Twitter Space open, on the top right there's a "Share" dropdown. On that list is "Copy Link" as below. It's been terrific to listen afterwards when busy. I have nothing to do with them, just sharing what I think is a cool find.

Welcome back! #EastmanTrial resumes, the case is In Re Eastman, Cal. State Bar, No. SBC-23-O-30029. Next up is Duncan Miller's cross-ex of Ray Blehar, who blocked @tomryanlaw & me after his first day of testimony. This unqualified buffoon has no business testifying on elections.

I've got my pad & pen ready: Duncan Carling of CA Bar is FAST (which is fun). Previous Ray Blehar testimony: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707797…

After SCREAMING about TOTALITARIAN REGIMES suppressing speech, Ray Blehar @rayblehar blocked many people. Asked that if people visit his page, they send him "Champagne Wishes & Caviar Dreams" from Tom and me (but it'll be your 1st & last visit). 🥳

@RayBlehar Now it's planned today's trial day will go until 4:30pm EDT (it was 3:30pm EDT). They think Ray Blehar (check his Twitter feed, he though he was fantastic) will take the rest of the day (around 1.5 hours). Ray sworn. Maybe he's getting last minute tips from Rachel Alexander. 🚀

@RayBlehar #EastmanTrial Duncan Carling (DC) continues cross-ex with #ElectionDenier Raymond Blehar (RB). He's cocky already. DC asks about whether he heard Droz' testimony. No. But he posted on his Twitter about the testimony! He was reading Rachel Alexander's Twitter (called it!) 🥳

#EastmanTrial Duncan Carling (DC) continues cross-ex with #ElectionDenier Raymond Blehar (RB). He's cocky already. DC asks about whether he heard Droz' testimony. No. But he posted on his Twitter about the testimony! He was reading Rachel Alexander's Twitter (called it!) 🥳

DC: Have you ever analyzed election data?
RB: Not in detail, interested since 7 years old...
DC: Prior to 2020, analyzed Edison data? Looked for election anomalies?
RB: Not at all.
RB discussed non-election related QA & "volumes of data" anomalies. Nothing to do with elections.

Here are tweets with Rachel Alexander and "Blockin' Ray Blehar" regarding the #EastmanTrial.

Carling makes clear that none of Ray Blehar's experience qualifies him to analyze election data. He asks how Blehar defines "anomalous".
RB: "Deviation, plotted on charts..."
DC: What's the cutoff?
RB: Um, no hard & fast... 10 highest / 5-10 lowest. #EastmanTrial

DC: With this methodology (below), since it's vote count & not share, wouldn't the biggest counties have the biggest changes in the "Contrast Report"?
RB: Um... if it was close... margins... In Philly, Trump did better in 2020 improved his performance more than Biden v HRC.

DC: Nothing surprising that more populous counties would have bigger vote shares?
RB: Not surprising.
DC: How is Contrast Report useful?
RB: "Misperception".. not saying statistical analysis is fraud, it was anomalies to investigate.
DC: How useful
RB: Deviation from the mean...

RB: "Funny I couldn't discuss this on Friday..." (snark, ignored)
DC: So the "Contrast Report" doesn't cover this?
RB: No. When we look how far in deviations...
DC: Central to report is determining how
RB: Standard deviation
DC: Measurement from mean?

This is very complex. I have notes & will fill in at the next break of after. Carling is talking about the usefulness of looking at more historical data, 2016, 2012. Blehar is tripping himself up, trying so hard not to be wrong and to "own Carling" he's denying most usefulness.

DC: As author of Contrast Report, would you be interested in previous elections?
RB: I'd be interested
DC: How useful is Contrast for finding fraud?
RB: Useful.
DC: How?
RB: Variation from the mean.
DC: Tested accuracy for detecting fraud?
RB: No.
#EastmanTrial

DC: Aware of any election where fraud occurred?
RB: Well in the newspapers...
DC: You don't know how accurate Contrast Reports are for detecting fraud? Report says it's useful...
RB: Never said fraud,
DC: Worked on "Spike Report"?
RB: Yes, Edison data...

DC: What does data from Edison describe?
RB: SOS info, exit polls...
DC: What's recorded for each timestamp?
RB: # of votes for each state, % of votes reported... where are we at? 97% 35%?
DC: What's a "vote dump" in the Spike Report?
RB: 3 sigma or 10 sigma.
#EastmanTrial

In GA there were two 10 sigma jumps

How did you determine what differences were anomalous?

RB: Red lines increasing, green line 10 sigma (sigma means deviation).
(This is key) DC: What's the basis that Edison has normal distribution? Agree that some things don't follow normal?
RB: Yes
DC: Is US income distribution normal?
RB: Probably...
#EastmanTrial

DC: Is the population of states normal?
RB: With ages, yes...
DC: Just plotting voters in counties.
RB: Don't understand.
Judge: What does normal distribution mean?
RB: Normal distribution is a bell shaped curve, extreme 3 sigma 99.7%, rest is normal variation.
#EastmanTrial

DC: Impact on analysis if assumption of Edison data not being normal, is Spike Report useless?
RB: Can't answer, didn't study probability.
DC: Why did you make that Edison was a normal distribution?
RB: The team made that assumption.

DC: How can you say Edison was a normal distribution?
RB: Standard statistical assumptions.
DC: How would you test if something follows a
RB: Bottom right, control chart, stat forumla based on data with standard deviations...

RB: Lower right chart shows distribution.
DC: That chart shows Edison uses normal distribution? Who on the team determined? Did you reach that conclusion?
RB: No

DC: Do you agree with statement, "When the race is tight..."
RB: More or less. Not a lot of variation between candidates. Bumps of 3K then a Biden bump of 120K would be unexpected or anomalous
DC: Basis for unexpected?
RB: Mostly not a large # of votes coming in at once...

RB: 2020 election had more counting centers, could be 1 reason different from previous years.
DC: Counties vary, right?
RB: Yes.
DC: You sent a tweet a few days ago that some spikes are explained here from urban voting, others are suspect.
RB: We're not that far apart here.

DC: In GA, a lot of small counties & a few big counties?
RB: Yes, like Fulton County
DC: Trend that heavily populated counties are more D & rural is more R?
RB: Yes, PA is much the same.
DC: When Fulton releases 30% of its ballots, more ballots than other counties?
RB: Yes.

DC: If a heavily populated urban county, wouldn't be more Biden than Trump?
RB: Yes.
DC: Why would that be an indication something fraudulent happened?
RB: If in 90% range, it's suspect.
#EastmanReport

DC: Spike Report shows jump for 1 candidates. If those are from big counties, is that a defined "vote dump"?
RB: Yes. What should have been in Spike Report was votes to other candidates.
RB: Not answer. In large urban counties, you'd expect more Biden votes?
#EastmanTrial

DC: But you flagged some spikes as suspect.
RB: We flagged some beyond 10 sigma.
DC: Did you compare Spikes in 2020 & prior elections?
RB: No.
DC: Wouldn't comparing it be helpful? Was it done?
RB: Not that I'm aware of.
#EastmanTrial

DC: Did you disagree with any of Droz's edits to your Spike Report work?
RB: No, not at all.
DC: When I asked about 25K, I thought you said that was a change you said Droz made.
RB: That was a definition for a Spike.
#EastmanTrial

DC: Do you disagree with that definition?
RB: Should have been a greater definition, but after this, he was right not to explain standard deviation
DC: Why "after today"?
RB: We talked so long, he wrote for the layman. Now it's the right editorial choice
DC: Ever talk to Eastman?

DC: 1st talked to Eastman?
RB: Never. Email (around GA runoff). Zoom call "Spring/Summer this year"
DC: Not 1/5 real-time info on runoff.
RB: Edison. Analysis & numbers. In 1 report, denominator reduced 20-30X.
DC: If denominator reduced, fraud?
RB: Didn't judge.
#EastmanTrial

That's it for the day! Wow, a ton of complicated testimony. Before unroll & after a quick break, I'll add some more from my notes. It appears the "Election Integrity Team" made assumptions about Edison. From everything I know, wrongly. COVID changed vote processing. #EastmanTrial

⚖️ Judge Roland said it best: Most Eastman witnesses lack the skills, education, background, training or experience to offer opinion or analysis regarding election. Ray Blehar fits.

Back 10/4 1pm EDT for more Blehar! Thanks for joining me for #EastmanTrial livetweeting! 🇺🇸

After looking through this, I think there's enough detail to understand Ray Blehar's answers to Duncan Carling's questions. So let's unroll, Carling's ex-cross continues tomorrow followed by Randall Miller's redirect so we'll get more Blehar for his fan.

@threadreaderapp unroll