I think it's because he believes that everyone should have their say in court and let it be cross examined before reaching a verdict, instead of outright dismissing an allegation without consideration

PA AG doing a little Black Friday gloating. I understand the urge, but the Dems must all be hoping that he remembered to knock on wood after hitting the send button: https://twitter.com/JoshShapiroPA/status/1332364118855208967

That... and I think that having a growing audience with divergent viewpoints on the election must be like walking a tightrope between skyscrapers with no safety net/harness or parachute. People want to know what is up, but they also want hope. Being overly pessimistic would be a turnoff, literally.

What am I looking for in a proper affidavit?

Yeah, they're 'canceling' youtube lawyers all over the place. Apostates are considered the worst of the worst, from what I've seen. That's the benefit of presenting objectively from the start, even when your wishes aren't a secret. You don't have to flip flop.

> What am I looking for in a proper affidavit?
@DisenchantedTruth I think the Georgia one is only several posts above. Not sure if that's what you are seeking.

It's not. No exhibits on it. I want the courtlistener filing which will also have the exhibits.

If you look at this link, you'll understand. MANY exhibits to go with the filing: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/

It being signed by a notary public.

Thanks! I guess that would seem fairly obvious but I never thought to look for it.

The 3rd exhibit has every affidavit signed by a notary public if you need examples of what to look for.

Thank you.

Now if they'd just get Georgia's case up so I can look at those exhibits, I'd be thrilled.!

They don't always have stamps, so sometimes you will get the note you see on the side.

I just hope that the defense (respondent?) has a decent technical expert. So far, Powell's "experts" have not been able to make any claims that would be able to stand up under cross examination or rebuttal by someone competent.

The goal might not be to actually win in court, although I'm sure they wouldn't complain.

It wouldn't hold up forever though

Defendant(s) @TaLoN132

Thought so... I was just looking it up.

Her expert witness has a pretty extensive background in computer hardware, voting machines, software, and has worked on several projects as a consultant for multiple intelligence agencies

Plaintiff(s) v. defendant(s)

@Maw, you just advanced to level 21!

I'm not trying to make any judgements about anything. I look at the info, then listen to what more knowledgeable have to say .... then watch the courts. I just understand when someone like Robert starts discussing if I've looked at the info available ahead of time. And have little victories when stuff I noticed gets mentioned.

It's just hobby.

I hear you... I was more replying to the content you linked to and not making any assumptions about your position.

I will say that while her witness sounds credible, there's still the issue of determining if it happened. It doesn't seem logical that just because a system is vulnerable that one should assume it was hacked.

maybe if they can actually pull one of these voting machines and do a forensic analysis, maybe there's a log on a memory drive on it somewhere that can yield some information, but again, it's kinda reaching.

Numerous independent agencies have conducted analysis of the source code of dominion voting machines.

Of which their primary concerns were that the code was jank, and that the programmers didn't follow industry standards. Nothing was mentioned about the ability to change votes.

It's outlined in the expert witness statements in the lawsuit Powell just filed

That and the security issues that come with jank code.

but again, proof of vulnerability doesn't mean proof of breach

Also any claim of "independence" from a regulatory agency has been proven to be dubious at best

but something interesting is occurring on the side, the Trump campaign speaking with the GOP members of the state legislature to share their findings, not in a court of law,

that seems to be the path hes taking

Doug Mastriano, PA State Senator, announced on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast that republicans would file a joint resolution to take back the power to appoint electors.

win public opinion, try to get faithless electors

From what I have seen in interviews, they did extensive work on past elections and it's become somewhat of a crusade for them. They seem to have some deep, long held beliefs and are trying to use circumstantial observations to imply that it is happening now. It just smacked of "someone with a big hammer looking for a nail" syndrome.

even with faithless electors I don't think he has enough anyways.

how so?