@thebrodys so yea the flaw I see is that:

A. the statistical evidence may not be convincing.

B. If it is convincing, just showing fraud doesn't implicate the "state action"

Half yes it's nice to not brush them but having every single argument be on neutral ground makes sides obsolete

C. Even if it does implicate state action, what is the expected remedy? @thebrodys

@realz That is pricelessly classic, textbook woospeak. The second they use 'quantam'-anything, you know you're on a wild ride.

My preferred remedy is to not have to listen to Biden for 4 years or 4 months, however long he lasts

It sounds like it but the paper itself was too complicated for me to make a determination from my limited knowledge

Lost me at that point 🙈

🤣

'No Biden at any cost' is no bueno.

Kamala laughing and her face expressions is no better either

Biden... will last 4 years. Dont worry

@thebrodys I'm at 33:15.... He just stated categorically that they can prove something statistically. I skipped to the point where you suggested. Did he offer the proof of fraud on the scale of millions of votes before this? If not, I am always skeptical when people offer statistics as proof, because for that to be true, the data set has to be pristine.

Corpsed fully decompose after roughly 2 years

> It sounds like it but the paper itself was too complicated for me to make a determination from my limited knowledge
@realz Yup. That's the whole idea. Lol

Lol.

he used "last for" I had to use it

It got peer reviewed ... There were corrections suggested and accepted

lol

He will.. they have Regeneron.. and alot of new medicine we dont know about

Well they should start dosing him yesterday

But yea I can rant about papers, peer review and science credibility for an hour

Maybe he'll get the coofs too *plug in the TYT reaction of Trumo got the coofs*

I should have listened further... He thinks what Sidney Powell has asserted is true. It is demonstrably not true, in my opinion. So, his premise is not sound.

Page 59, section 122 in the GA filing starts talking about statistical evidence. If all that proves to be true..isn’t that enough?

@thebrodys, you just advanced to level 3!

I hope so

He doesn't say that it is provable though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WPBupdKfw context ^^

He assumes that you can prove things with statistics but not pin it on something like Dominion

In the beginning he does talk about Sydney Powell and how she has fallen into a trap in some of the things she’s said

Did you start from 26:00?

no

Yeah...

All this statistics. Is done as a hypothesis.. to show ways of how could fraud be committed.. but Zero evidence

Wrong reply... Yes to starting at 26:00

Ack. Like I said he doesn't rely on Powell

That’s not necessarily true. It can be proven that it happened, but it will take a long time to prove WHO did it. Dr. Corsi, does talk about that

> It got peer reviewed ... There were corrections suggested and accepted
@realz That's a lot like when Switzerland didn't ban homeopathy outright and homeopathic practitioners claimed that as acknowledgement of validity. I don't want to belabor the point because the chat has moved on but it's still funny to me.

First Page and main point. Is Venezuela dominion and Hugo Chavez.. is going to nowhere land

But don’t you start where it began?

His argument is tdlr @TaLoN132

A. Assuming there is _statistical evidence of fraud_ (not specific to Dominion or any specific method).

B. Even if we can't figure out who or why that happened, the method, and can't convict anyone of doing it.

C. We can use statistical evidence because Roberts has in the past accepted statistical evidence for the Voting Rights Act w.r.t "state action" to disenfranchise, even without an underlying explaination of the statistics.