Does he understand that a shift of fewer than 40,000 votes in three states (AZ, GA, WI) would have thrown the election into the House where Trump probably would have won? It did not require massive ballot harvesting or computer tampering, just a little old-fashioned finagling. Comparable to the margins in TX and IL that brought the 1960 election into question.

But there were several highly coherent and persuasive presentations based on statistics and mathematical analysis. I am not talking about the bellwether county anomaly, which (as with several other similar anecdotal type oddities) is persuasive in itself.

The several entirely disparate statistical analyses (IMO) were irrefutable on their face. They proved that fraudulent manipulation took place with results beyond the official winning numbers. I cannot see how anything more would be required.

It is my impression that other such mathematical proofs have been made elsewhere, some using sophisticated but entirely accepted forensic methods to prove fraudulent manipulation beyond the required number of deciding votes.

And yet the statistical or mathematical approach seems never to be discussed or raised in a broad public venue.

I recently had an argument with my husband about the 2020 elections. He is a conservative. He despises Brandon. But he still believes there wasn’t enough fraud in the 2020 elections such that Trump could’ve won. Why? Because he still reads “mainstream media” and assumes that because Trump’s suits were dismissed, that there was no “there, there.”

I have pointed out the statistical anomalies that make fraud probable. I can’t find the exact numbers, however, as they are buried in days / week/s months of other stories on “election fraud” on the internet, such that an internet search is fruitless. I have also pointed out that massive fraud doesn’t need some vast organized group of conspirators. It just needs a few dedicated people in the right places at the right time, and a confluence of things that make it easier: Massive mail-in ballots and the ability to ballot harvesting.

I have pointed out that there were various reasons that the suits were dismissed, none of which had anything to do with actual fraud.

My husband was on the fraud train shortly after it happened, but now, I think it is either just easier for him to believe there wasn’t significant fraud, or it’s been repeated so often, he just has come to believe it.

I think it comes down to: If people keep telling you the sky is green often enough, at some point, you look up and say, “Huh. I guess it really is green.”

Maybe that is where Mike Judge is now. Maybe he is not a dedicated reader of Ace of Spades HQ, or the New Neo. Maybe he thinks National review is still “conservative.”

Dershowitz is saying a lot of things right now that Trump supporters want to hear. He is also, however, a card-carryng member of the criminal defense tribe, and principled enough that he would be saying these things about any defendant. Traditionally, the criminal defense tribe was more the domain of the left and prosecution tribe more the domain of the right, which is why, I think, there are so many people in the right-of-center legal voices saying things that Trump supporters would prefer not to hear. (e.g., Chris Christie, Andy McCarthy, etc.)

There are elements of truth in the perspectives of both the criminal defense tribe and the prosecution tribe, but I don’t think that either side has things completely right.

That’s also why I think it is folly to try to attribute political motivations to Dershowitz. I strongly suspect that his affiliation with the criminal defense tribe is stronger than his political affiliation with the left – but that doesn’t mean he belongs on the political right.

That’s nice that they speak out on this but are they really moving the needle? I doubt it. Do any Dem officeholders support that, or more importantly any significant number of our “nice, reasonable” lib friends? Not that I can see. For that matter how many *Republican* politicians are going to the mat on this?