Also they were bringing up the Appel and smartmatic nonsense both in the hearings and Powells case it's the same witnesses

My tweet from dr shiva was mainly intended to draw focus to weighted voting tabulation.

Dr. Shiva testified in both Sindey's and Rudy's lawsuits

This isn't just republicans. Like, for real my dude, have a read.

They're insecure and poorly programmed.

I was confused by @RobertGrulerEsq's take on the Act 77 issue in PA yesterday. He stated that the Republicans challenged Act 77, but the PA SC instead, in effect, modified the act by allowing Boockvar to extend the date by 3 days that mail in ballots that were postmarked by 11/3 could be accepted and counted. To me, it seemed like Reps were using Act 77 to **support **their case that Boockvar exceeded her authority and did not challenge the constitutionality of Act 77. In Alito's order to set aside the ballots received after 11/3, Alito recaps the Reps claims that if the court found that the provision specifying the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots by 8:00PM on election day *"was declared invalid, much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would be void."*. Their claim makes no assertion that the entire Act is unconstitutional. And in Alito's Statement issued when the SC declined to expedite the case, he alludes to the actions of the PA SC being unconstitutional and not the act itself. So, why would the challenge to Boockvar violating Act 77 in Sept be considered as having challenged the constitutionality of the Act 77 itself? Why wouldn't it be proof that in Sept the Reps fully believed that Act 77 **was **constitutional because they used it as a basis for suing Boockvar?

I've only taken half a semester on using UNIX based systems, and I'm sure me and the other muppets in my class could create a more secure system.

Shiva said if you check the paper trail his claims dont make sense he needs access to the paper ballots.

Which they are wiping from the machines in Georgia

@Maw I'd be interested in your take, as well...

What legitimate reason could they have to not hold onto that data?

Following procedure perhaps but I cant speak to their reason or motive

WOW

following procedure 🤣

What are they still verifying 3 recounts in 😂

“Our procedure is to destroy the evidence”

You never discard evidence in a liability or criminal suit

Even it's something as trivial as an evelope

@TaLoN132 Can you give me a timestamp of Robert's response? I half pay attention in the streams because I'm modding chat.

Any attorney worth their salt would know doing so would risk them getting disbarred

All of this destruction of evidence, while it may be detrimental to the state level cases, perhaps it’s helpful in the looming scotus ruling?

It's why there's a strict procedure and even harsher punishment for disclosing all relevant information to the opposing party

@TaLoN132 Might have found it.

Are you talking about the Act 77 take?

@TaLoN132 Yes.

Just a sec...

I already got it.

About 40:25

https://twitter.com/codemonkeyz/status/1333641704839147520?s=21 anyone have thoughts on this? Can anything be made conclusive from this video? At work and can’t watch

It would be hard to convince a judge of anything suspicious going on there

Guy just looks like regular IT support

@Maw My question really pertained to Robert's take around 46:25 where he asserts that Republicans challenged Act 77 in Sept.

Is “it support” permitted on tabulation machines at the time that footage was recorded?

I have no doubt something suspicious is going on, just playing devil's advocate here

cause you're going to need convince someone taking an impartial stance that something funny is going on

Sorta like how lawyers practice cross-examination with their own witnesses

@TaLoN132 He didn't, I don't believe? He said the state SC did.

I understand they passed one version in Sept of 2019 and then an amended version of that in Sept of this year?

I think that's around the ball park

Yes, the state SC legislated from the bench in Sept 2020.

What were the details of the amended version?