Sunday, November 8, 2020

Common Sense From Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley

Again, we would not know if we have systemic rather than episodic problems until we look at this evidence. It is not about sharpies or poll watchers. It is about possible problems in software and authentication systems. What is the harm in allowing courts to review such claims? 
...The demand for clear evidence of systemic violations during the tabulation stage is bizarre. We would not necessarily have such evidence, which is largely held by election officials. As expected, we have a series of localized affidavits and allegations of intentional fraud... 
...It is like saying that a patient has low white blood cell level but insisting on stopping testing if you cannot conclusively say that there is cancer. These initial allegations may or may not be indicative of a more systemic problem. Let's find out.


  1. Rudy was on Maria B.'s show today, saying that he expects suits this week in at least 5 states, challenging legality of counts, individual ballot scrutiny, etc.
    He charges that this was a nationwide conspiracy, and he expects suits in later weeks, in at least a few other states.

    It was brutal, to see how often she interrupted him, compared to how often she interrupted her later guests.
    I'll bet her producer was screaming into her ear, but insofar as she let that sabotage the interview, she let the country down.
    It'll be quite a drama tomorrow, to see if Tucker & Hannity are forced to follow the cuck-like path, that Ingraham seems to have stepped upon.

    1. We watched Maria/Rudy, too, and it/she was ugly. She has become increasingly shrill. With that awful voice and a program packed full of commercial breaks, she is becoming a mess. We watch for her guests, not her. When I began watching her years ago, when she was reporting on just the market, she was cool and professional. Sometimes now she comes across as a shrill, combative harpy. And she is often weak on facts that almost anyone on this forum knows.

    2. I expect most of the GOP to work with the Dems generally as a what is trickling out.

      They should not and Obama’s pick for Supreme Court is an example.

      So, what will they do with stuff like this (I think Biden will be Prez no matter what) ...

      “ According to current numbers from DecisionDeskHQ, 5,867,609 people in Michigan voted in the presidential election while 5,717,819 voted in the very competitive Senate election. That’s a 149,790 difference. Biden is currently ahead by 145,935 votes.

      Some might say that it’s just such a competitive Senate race that many people were torn so they voted for nobody. Unlikely, but okay. Let’s look at Oregon, which is a very blue state known for rampant voter fraud that did not have any risk of flipping to red in either their presidential vote or senate race. There, 2,317,816 voted for president compared to 2,281,011 voting for Senate, a 36,805 difference.

      What about a red state with a competitive Senate race like South Carolina? 2,514,124 voted for president while a nearly identical 2,512,793 voted in the Senate race, a mere 1,331 difference. That sounds much more reasonable based on past elections with only a small portion of the electorate abstaining on the Senate.“

      Link posted by Citizen Free Press whom Surber champions.

    3. Meh! Fox has been in on the propaganda game for the last 2+ decades. Most of their followers were to indoctrinated see it coming and getting a ride awaking.

      I've seen Maria do many interviews with figures dragging sunlit into the room and getting treated the same way. (George Papadopoulos being one that comes to mind).

      Everyone roots for Tucker but I always caution that Tucker is their latest Glenn Beck and a necessity to keep the believers from becoming sceptics.

      I wish people spent more time doing their own research and digging on the spins. It helps when you keep out of your bubble and view both sides of the coin. Often times the slant or leans about a story tell you more about the topic than the actual information being given.

      Critical thinking skills, don't be scared of them!

  2. It started with such an odious analogy I apologize for not completing it.

    To be Frank, I do no waste my time on surrenderist literature.

    I am angry we are being subjected to another media PsyOp. I grew up in DC the swamp is scummy and shitty and criminal and imo have sold us out to the ccp.

    my apologies Mr.Turley

  3. A. Macris has an analysis, of the implications of Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York (GOP vs. JC, about NY's EVs, 1976), upon how courts would weigh the sorts of arguments DJT figures to bring, see :

    "The Trump campaign will need to prove (a) specific acts of misconduct (b) involving willful or knowing ballot fraud (c) by state officials or private persons acting with state officials (d) that changed the outcome of the election.

    The Trump campaign can use expert testimony and statistical evidence to prove its case, but it needs some direct evidence too. (Remember that in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered direct evidence.)...."

    1. However, while it is an interesting case to read, there are important differences from our current situation.

      1. Obviously, back then there were no computers.

      2. In Trump's case statistical evidence--if probative enough--could be used to delay certification or to justify remedies other than an re-do, as was being requested. For example, identifiable classes of ballots could be excluded, and those could easily change the outcome.

      3. The big problem for Ford was that "the partisan nature of the vote was not a factor in his statistical survey (Dec. 8, Tr. A61). As such, it is impossible to determine what percentage of the fraudulent vote went to Mr. Carter and what portion went to President Ford." That's why Ford lost.

      That, I believe, would not be the case for Trump. The partisan nature of the glitches is quite apparent.

    2. Yeah, he addresses some of these factors, esp. near the end:
      "So the plaintiffs in Donohue lost their case for a few reasons.
      First, they didn’t show, that the irregularities were willful acts of misconduct by state officials. Second, the particular ‘irregularity’ they showed didn’t really prove fraud; there were other inferences that were *plausible*.
      Third, they didn’t establish, that the irregularities actually were irregularities in Carter’s favor!
      They showed a pattern of irregular votes, but didn’t show that those irregular votes were for Jimmy....."