Harmeet Dhillon's Common Sense Take On The Kraken

I came across this twitter thread by Harmeet Dhillon at FR. What I've done is paste it in and edit its format for readability--regularized paragraph format and so forth. I've deleted all the references and links. You can get it all by going here. 

What I came away with from Sidney Powell's Kraken was the conviction that the simple approach is probably the right one--in the short term. I believe there's ample reason to do a painstakingly thorough audit of the entire 2020 election, but the immediate goal has to be to right the specific wrong--undo The Steal. For that proximate, short term, goal a focus on traditional voter fraud will suffice, even though it may miss the bigger picture of election fraud. This takes nothing away from Sidney Powell's Kraken of a complaint--in actual fact, Powell presents a compelling account of just that sort of fraud. The big picture can be addressed--indeed, must be addressed--as we go forward.

This is a strategy that Harmeet Dhillon expresses well:

Ok, I’ve read the lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell’s organization. It contains many allegations familiar to those following these legal challenges, with two big themes:

1) numerous irregularities in vote-counting based on ad hoc law/procedure changes, including

putting ballots in the wrong stacks en masse, 

pre-printed ballots that were “pristine” and unlined; 

blocking Republican observers from vote-tabulation tables; 

counting votes after the so-called “pipe burst” election night even though there were no Rep. observers, 

and more ... 

The second big theme is that the Dominion voting machines are easily hackable and experts have written scripts to show how one can manually manipulate vote tallies, alter settings so as to put more ballots into a “question” pile and then just delete them.

These are serious allegations, and maybe the evidence (some of it filed and some of it under seal provisionally) will persuade. Either of these big themes would be enough to change the election results given the narrow margin for Biden. 

To me, the easiest way to reach that goal is something much simpler, alleged in the complaint at para. 121. Thousands of specific, identifiable voters, cast ballots after they moved out of state as evidenced in their registration in a national database, and may even have cast votes in their new states also — which can easily be checked against the other state’s records. This accounts for thousands of votes. 

The other category, which @MattBraynard has researched & documented, is thousands of identifiable, specific registrations at fraudulent addresses such as P.O. Boxes, non-residential, etc. — These seem to be specific and of a sufficient volume that their disqualification would affect the outcome of the election. I think this simple tack - much easier to grasp and prove than the more complicated theories — is compelling. 

To critics who say this is too late, it really isn’t. How are you supposed to allege that someone cast a ballot from a fraudulent registration address or after moving, before the election? This is something that can only be checked after the votes are cast and tallied, particularly where last-minute registrations are permitted by increasingly lax voter registration policies pushed by Democrats, followed by no signature verification or other safeguards, as the lawsuit alleges.

I think these “Braynard” allegations have legs, and should be pursued aggressively. A court should want to know which thousands of specific, identifiable people illegally cast ballots in Georgia. I hope the federal court allows inquiry into this low-tech challenge even if it does not bite on the more expert-and statistically-based theories. There’s time to get this right, and we must.  — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) November 26, 2020