Briefly Noted: China Won, But Who Won Georgia?

I'm heading out to give blood soon, but here are two good reads I noticed this morning.

The first is Conrad Black offering his big picture view of who won the Covid Panic. His answer is simple: China won. They were ruthless and opportunistic:

Judge Orders Fulton County Absentee Ballots Unsealed

There's really not much more to the story for right now--except that the petitioners will be allowed to scan the ballots. Uh oh! Yeah, that's the real story. If you want more, go to Zerohedge:

Georgia Judge Decides To Unseal 2020 Absentee Ballots In Fulton County For Review

I assume this means that we'll learn that there was fraud--and lots of it. Of course we'll have to wait and see, and maybe there'll be more rulings, and etc. All these legal maneuverings, however, simply confirm what we all know happened. It doesn't really matter whether there are definitive findings of fact because nobody would be fighting so hard against electoral transparency if there weren't something to hide. Everyone knows that. Rasmussen's polling shows that--this hasn't been missed.

The way this worked is that the defendants--Fulton County and some other GA officials--were told to allow the petitioners to scan images of the ballots. They fobbed them off with crummy 200 dpi images, but the petitioners demanded images of no less than 600 dpi--and access to the ballots themselves. As of today the judge thinks that's reasonable and will issue an order next week establishing procedures for this process.

Don Surber's Case Against A GOP Senate

I'm having trouble finding anything worth writing about today, however ...

Don Surber makes a strong case for conservatives voters in Georgia to give up the Senate to the crazies:

The case against a Republican Senate

It's a longish blog, with Surber riffing off Senator Tim Scott's appeal to Georgia conservatives to get out and vote, and then running through the many ways the GOPe has betrayed conservatives generally and, in the last few years, Trump specifically. However, Surber's argument can be boiled down to two quite brief paragraphs:

A Republican Senate amplifies the power of Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and other Never Trumpers. This will enable them to sell their swing votes to the highest bidder in the name of principle.

And they dare ask for our votes while allowing Democrats to steal the presidential election uncontested!

I'm normally one to argue that a bird in the hand is most likely worth two in the bush, but ... It's hard to gainsay Surber. The Senate should be made to pay for their betrayal of Trump--if they aren't held to account, then what will ever change? What other options are there?

The strongest argument against Surber's view may be contained in Monica Showalter's blog on So what did Nancy Pelosi promise The Squad? Showalter explains that the vote was actually much closer than even the final tally of 216-209 would suggest. She then argues that to get the Speakership certainly had to give away the house to the Squad crazies. This will have results:

What did Pelosi offer them in exchange for their votes? What did she offer that would disgust other Democrats and put them in an even more desperate position for re-election? Why did she throw moderation away? 

It comes as a red wave is building in the House, what with Democrats losing more than a dozen seats in the November presidential election, and traditional U.S. political patterns suggesting the Republicans are on track to win anyway. Kowtowing to the Squad and buying them off is going to make the red wave ahead much bigger.

There are a number of things that can be said. Has Pelosi ever been "moderate"? Not by my lights. That other bird, the one in the bush, the coming "red wave"--how red will it really be? 

But perhaps the most important consideration is in the question that Showalter left unanswered: "Why did [Pelosi] throw moderation away?" Is she really desperate to hold on to the Speakership for the prestige alone, or do the Dem power brokers believe that only Pelosi can guide their radical agenda through the House and on to what may well turn out to be a Dem Senate? Would Dems really go for broke in what may be only a two year window, counting on their agenda being cemented in place, never to be repealed by the typically feckless GOP and the Roberts judges? It's possible. It's also out of our control at this point. It was within the control of the GOP, if they had chosen to fight for Trump.

Briefly Noted: Name Deficit In Pennsylvania?

I'm not mathematician, so I can't explain this. I'll let the Twitter threads speak for themselves--with a hat tip to TGP, where I found this.

You may recall that an Ivy League math professor, Steven J. Miller, previously testified about statistical anomalies in the Pennsylvania vote. Later, a "mathematician and expert witness" testified for the Trump campaign in Arizona, again pointing out statistical anomalies. This second mathematician is named Bobby Piton, but I've been unable to come up with his bio quickly. Twitter suspended Piton for his AZ testimony. At any rate, Piton has now examined the PA and GA votes from a rather novel perspective--a statistical analysis of Last Names. His research--if I understand it correctly--indicates that votes were deducted in PA. LOTS of votes.

What follows is my editing of Piton's new Twitter thread, which explains his analysis of the PA vote. That is followed by his conclusions which correlate PA and GA. See what you make of it. My understanding of what he's saying about PA--and I may be mistaken--goes like this:

Piton identified 521,879 Last Names that were used in the PA vote. Of those, 47% belong to "one and only one person." So Piton then looked at the names that had multiple persons attached to them. By looking at just the 1000 most common Last Names and discovered that there were nearly 700K fewer of these people who voted than statistics would project. That's a pretty huge anomaly. 

Based on what he discovered, Piton concludes:

Based on my findings a sophisticated State Actor was able to optimize a desired outcome for both the State of Georgia and the State of Pennsylvania.

OK, so first we have Piton's summary of his PA findings:

Briefly Noted: The Georgia Runoff

The Washington Examiner frames the Georgia runoff in terms of Trump somehow needing to protect his legacy:

If Trump wants Republicans to keep the Senate and protect his legacy, he needs to change his tune

President Trump says he wants Republicans to keep the Senate and will be campaigning in Georgia. But his persistent claims that the election was stolen from him and attacks on Georgia’s Republican leadership are fueling disillusionment that could backfire on conservatives and the Republican Party, and make Sen. Chuck Schumer the majority leader.

I get what they mean, to some degree--that Trump should want to preserve all his accomplishments. Which, the Examiner somehow fails to note, came about in spite of GOPe obstruction rather than because of any enthusiasm the Establishment had for the Trump agenda. The subtext, of course is: Please concede and graciously support those who may well do nothing to protect your legacy. Who could refuse an offer like that? 

There might be reasons that Trump would follow that route, but right now Trump has larger responsibilities. Those responsibilities are not to a political party but to the American people who elected him--and as president he is the only public official elected by the general public of the entire nation. As president Trump represents the interests of an entire branch of government, as well as those of the population of the nation at large. That responsibility has to come before any lingering loyalty to those who undercut him to the maximum extent they were able.

And then there's this. What about the GOP as a party? What have they done lately to promote and protect their brand? To engender trust among the public?

Links To Good Election Challenge Updates

It's hard to keep up with everything that's going on, so here are three worthwhile links (plus one, following). I selected these--all from TGP--because they point to significant issues that highlight the strong likelihood of fraud. The final link features a Georgia legal strategy quote from Shipwreckedcrew.

Let's go:

Former FBI Special Agent Finds 17,514 Georgia Voters with Out-of-State Forwarded Mail Addresses

That would definitely be a clue. And in addition to those 17K+ voters, he found an additional nearly 58K voters who voted in counties other than the one where their listed address is located. And of that 58K 75% did NOT vote in person. What a surprise! And as for the 17K+ batch, these were to non-military addresses and 89% were over the age of 25--so presumably not students.

EXCLUSIVE: Votes Moved to Joe Biden in Pennsylvania on Election Night Were Labeled “Accidentally Awarded” to Libertarian Party and Given to Biden

I'm including this link because it highlights what others have suggested was a regular technique for transferring votes to Biden more or less 'under the radar': awarding votes to Libertarian loser Jo Jorgenson and then siphoning all or almost all of those votes off to Biden.

This final link includes a really very good video presentation that was featured at the hearings in AZ.

Arizona Voter Fraud Witness Army Col. Phil Waldron Confirms Experts Saw Dominion Communicating with Frankfurt on Election Day (VIDEO)

The title is, of course, self explanatory, but Waldron gives a very articulate explanation of it all. He also talks about the overall almost total lack of security when these Dominion machines are connected to the internet. Which they were--that's how Waldron was able to confirm the traffic between Dominion and Frankfurt.

SWC Takes A First Look At The Kraken

Shipwreckedcrew has taken time out from his Thanksgiving to read Sidney Powell's Georgia complaint and to provide an overview of it. For my money--and, no, I didn't have to pay to read the article--the most interesting part is SWC's explanation of how Powell got her full case into federal court and how that intersects with the Trump legal team's statement that Powell is practicing law on her own. SWC's explanation fits in well with Giuliani's later statement that he and Powell are pursuing "different theories":

Powell filed this action in federal court, but procedurally she is seeking to have the matter heard by the Court both as a federal constitutional challenge — which gets the matter into federal court — but also as an “election contest” under Georgia State law which would be heard by the federal court pursuant to what’s called “ancillary” jurisdiction. When a plaintiff has both state and federal claims that they can assert in a lawsuit, “federal question” jurisdiction is the basis upon which the federal court will hear and resolve the disputes under federal law. Related state law claims can also be determined by the federal court — applying state substantive law and procedures where necessary — pursuant to the court’s “ancillary” jurisdiction so as to allow all the matters to be resolved as part of one proceeding.

This is just a guess, but this may be one reason why the Trump Campaign opted to announce that Powell is working on her own. I believe the Trump campaign will be filing an “election contest” in Georgia state court very shortly, seeking to prove that a number of unqualified voters larger than the margin between the candidates cast ballots for Biden. If the Campaign was working hand-in-hand with Powell when she filed this suit on behalf of the Electors, it is possible that the Court would consider the campaign an “indispensable” party, and allow the defendants to bring them into this action.

Working separately — separate attorneys and separate investigators — is the basis upon which the Campaign will likely file its own action in state court. That, in effect, gives them at least two election contests underway in different courts at the same time, each with different allegations and theories supporting their request for relief.

In other words, it begins to look like coordinated strategies. You can read the rest of SWC's article here:

Sidney Powell Shoves her Chips "All In" With Georgia Complaint Alleging Rigged Election -- Part One

We'll be looking forward to further analysis from SWC.

 

Georgia In Play?

Yes, of course it is. But just minutes ago Shipwreckedcrew came out with a very detailed analysis of the situation there that puts flesh on gut feelings. His conclusion?

The Trump Campaign Has A Very Real Chance To Overturn The Election Result in Georgia

I won't repeat all the details, but the basis for this challenge comes down to the issue of hanky panky with absentee ballots--which Matt Braynard is beginning to uncover. In Georgia 1,322,529 ballots were cast, with a margin of only about 12,500 votes. The suspicion is that there's a fair degree of correspondence between those absentee ballots and the nearly 1 million new voter registrations between 2018 and 2020. Braynard has been discovering that significant numbers of those registrations come back to non-residential addresses (PO boxes in particular, or mail drop sites at FedEx or UPS)--which is illegal in Georgia.

All of these state challenges are highly specific to each state, due to the many variances in state election laws. Anyone with an interest in Georgia is highly recommended to read this very informative article.

UPDATED: Georgia On My Mind

Shipwreckedcrew has a very perceptive article that begins by discussing general electoral litigation issues and then focuses specifically on Georgia: What is the End Game for the Litigation Strategy In Georgia?

As regards the general issues, SWC warns us to expect reversals at the lower court levels:

Let’s begin with a simple observation — no single district court judge and no three-judge panel of a federal circuit court of appeal are going to enter an order that reverses the outcome of a state’s reported vote count with regard to selecting the electors who will choose a President. Doing so would run contrary to the long-standing principle of not involving the Judicial branch in the outcome of disputes of a political nature involving the two political branches.

Lower courts will conduct hearings and received factual evidence, but at the end of the process, it is almost a certainty that they will decline to exercise any authority to intervene — even in cases of fraud.

He goes on to explain why this is so, why you should expect these outcomes. It's part of the process that the Trump team hopes will get them to the SCOTUS--as Jordan Sekulow also makes clear in an interview that I'll link below. Be prepared, and if you want more information, follow the link above.

After this discussion, SWC moves on to Georgia. His bottom line is that the Trump team needs to get a machine recount--which they're entitled to. However, along the way to that conclusion, he uncovers some eye catching statistical anomalies that came to light in the just completed recount. Basically, what he shows is that:

1. In the heavily Dem counties in the Atlanta metro area--won by Biden in overwhelming fashion--the recount discovered new votes.

2. Logically you would expect those new votes to break in the same ratios as the votes that had already been counted.

3. Instead, in stunning fashion, the ratios actually reversed, with Trump winning the newly discovered votes in equally overwhelming fashion!