It was pointed out to me by two lawyers that appellate law is very nitpicky. Powell is an appellate specialist. I suspect she wanted to be sure everything was perfect before she filed. This means that not only do you include affidavits of witnesses, you do research to make sure that the affidavits are credible and the affiant reliable–willing to show up in court.

There had been a case filed in Michigan that included data on precincts in Minnesota. Easy mistake to make, but fatal to an appeal.

It seems that Powell’s efforts are moving in parallel to Trump’s efforts. For legal reasons, some lawsuits have to come from Trump folks, others from other affected parties.

Elaine T: YES!

Youtube usually offers a computer-generated transcript available at the “…” button. (Right-click “…” and select “Open Transcript.”) It’s ok, but not optimal reading without punctuation or paragraph breaks..

However, YouTube neglected to include a transcript with the Barnes video. Maybe because the video is close to four hours long? Or more nefarious reasons?

Computerized signature matching uses algorithms to compare features in a signature to a known sample. Because no signatures are exactly alike, even from the same person on the same day, there is a margin of error that’s built into the algorithm that allows for some differences. So for example, the margin could be set to 90% match and that would be a very strict standard.

Conversely, if you set the margin of error too high then the algorithm will accept all sorts of deviations from the known signature, even to the point of accepting clearly wrong signatures.

The allegation is that the limits in NV were set to 40%, which is effectively no signature matching.

This is like a trial. The prosecution (the uni-party) has put their case forward and listening to them you think that the defendant is the most low down dirtiest skunk that was allowed to be born.

Then the defense takes over. This is the defense starting to present their case. Up until now the process has the certification process moving forward. It is AFTER the certification is when aggrieved party can start filing challenges. Let’s see what evidence can be produced. It will be very interesting to see how the Pennsylvania Secretary of State explain the 1.8M absentee sent out vs. the 2.5M absentee returned.

I feel much better after today.

Once democrats fix electoral vote counting to always ensure their candidates winning, the two term limit for President can be amended.

As for Harris, her 2024 replacement is already being considered. She’s a nasty bit of work and will never attain the necessary level of popularity to win reelection. In office, her popularity would be certain to remain at her miniscule primary levels and if possible fall even lower. Once Trump was gone the dems would need a Presidential candidate whose popularity was high enough to give at least fig’s leaf of coverage to their fraudulent vote counts.