“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Witness explaining that on electronic ballots (QR code ballots), it's impossible to determine voter intent. The machine decides the intent, whereas, with paper ballots, a human can double-check the ballot. https://t.co/kkhamio2Je
— The Election Wizard (@Wizard_Predicts) December 30, 2020
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Of note, @GaSecofState knows each of these details.
And Ryan Germany, general counsel for Georgia’s secretary of state’s office, was a participant in at least one the major court hearings discussing some of these issues.
https://t.co/BAo0zkY1EP
Adidia claimed his company's ARLO division could accurately perform a Risk-Limiting audit (used by GA).
That contention was absolutely destroyed by Judge Totenberg.
https://t.co/jqdo95zBY0
More from Jeff Carlson
1) Lots of politicians talking about the "Sanctity" & "Strength" of our "Institutions".
While failing to acknowledge that for a huge swath of Americans, that faith in those same Institutions has been impaired or destroyed.
2) President Trump didn't create this lack of faith. Nor the anger and distrust.
It has long been there, brewing and gathering strength. Precisely because of actions from those same Institutions.
The reactions from the Media & DC to Trump's term solidified those beliefs.
3) We just learned that the IC downplayed the role of China in the election for political purposes.
"Some of our career people, even CIA management, were politicizing China
4) The intentional distractions from China through a laughable focus on false claims of Russian-Collusion did irreparable harm to our country.
To date there has been one conviction for an institutional attempt to impair - even bring down - President Trump's administration.
5) Justice delayed is justice foregone.
Why is it that Justice seems to so lean heavily in one direction?
And why do people pervasively believe the Institutions protect their own?
While failing to acknowledge that for a huge swath of Americans, that faith in those same Institutions has been impaired or destroyed.
Congress\u2019s completing its certification of electors \u2014 with our law enforcement heroes having restored order in the Capitol \u2014 at 3:40 AM today shows the strength of American political institutions and represents a victory for the rule of law & constitutional government in America.
— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) January 8, 2021
2) President Trump didn't create this lack of faith. Nor the anger and distrust.
It has long been there, brewing and gathering strength. Precisely because of actions from those same Institutions.
The reactions from the Media & DC to Trump's term solidified those beliefs.
3) We just learned that the IC downplayed the role of China in the election for political purposes.
"Some of our career people, even CIA management, were politicizing China
4) The intentional distractions from China through a laughable focus on false claims of Russian-Collusion did irreparable harm to our country.
To date there has been one conviction for an institutional attempt to impair - even bring down - President Trump's administration.
5) Justice delayed is justice foregone.
Why is it that Justice seems to so lean heavily in one direction?
And why do people pervasively believe the Institutions protect their own?
A lot of people dismissively mocking this tweet but it's worth pausing to recognize its Marxist roots.
This "thinking" traces back to Critical Theory, The Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno & ultimately Antonio Gramsci.
The Frankfurt School employed a technique called Critical Theory – a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole.
The point of the theory is to criticize every traditional social institution – and to specifically avoid offering any alternatives – as a means to breaking down Western Culture.
Theodor Adorno wrote the influential book The Authoritarian Personality which argued that anyone who defended traditional culture was a Fascist.
Sound familiar?
Antonio Gramsci was a Marxist theorist and a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy who created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony. And Counter Hegemony.
Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned.
This "thinking" traces back to Critical Theory, The Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno & ultimately Antonio Gramsci.
parents are tyrants. "parent" is an oppressive class, like rich people or white people.
— Noah Berlatsky (@nberlat) December 14, 2020
The Frankfurt School employed a technique called Critical Theory – a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole.
The point of the theory is to criticize every traditional social institution – and to specifically avoid offering any alternatives – as a means to breaking down Western Culture.
Theodor Adorno wrote the influential book The Authoritarian Personality which argued that anyone who defended traditional culture was a Fascist.
Sound familiar?
Antonio Gramsci was a Marxist theorist and a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy who created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony. And Counter Hegemony.
Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned.
More from Law
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
