2020 Election Commentary

[Pat]

I would argue that your vote has a chance of having been the deciding vote in any election. Consider the IA-02 congressional election, certified at 196,964 to 196,958. You say a voter on the winning side had no effect because there were 5 other votes if they hadn't vote; I say that they had a one in 196,964 chance of being the vote that put victory over the top. Or even that they had a one in 196,964 share of the victory. Even the voters for the losing candidate can take something away, in that they had a share of preventing the winner from claiming a larger mandate. I suppose you can take some pride in having cancelled out the vote of some wrong-headed person on the other side.

The all or nothing nature of the electoral college does tend to discourage turnout; no point for candidates to advertise or campaign much in states they are certain to win or to lose, and no point for those voting for or against the certain winner to vote. The winning side needs enough voters to win, and the losing side should perhaps even discourage turnout until the moment is ripe for a stealth wave of turnout. A weighted popular vote would encourage engagement with more states and a push to get the most turnout.

But the simplest way to get more turnout is to pay people; a refundable tax credit if you vote. Colorado had an initiative for such a voting tax credit but it didn't get enough signatures to be on the ballot (the governor changed the signature gathering requirements because of the pandemic but a legal challenge struck it down, and presumably it was too hard to get enough in-person signatures by the deadline). (An example of timely legal challenges to election procedures, as opposed to waiting until the result to decide to challenge.)

It's not a lottery. There isn't a 1:X chance that your vote was the one that put them over the top. Elections, like market transactions, happen on the margin. Prices are determined by what the next person is willing to pay, and elections are decided by the last X people who decided to vote for the candidate of True Evil instead of the candidate of Absolute Evil.

You could say that you have a 1:X share of the victory, but that's purely symbolic. It's wearing your team colors, or being one voice cheering in the crowd, or one set of arms in a wave that circles the stadium. It's more a ritual dance than anything else. You didn't make it happen, and it will happen if you're not there. But it's a way of asserting you're part of the community.

I don't think encouraging more people to vote adds any value. Democracies need a certain level of voter engagement to function, but there's a point of diminishing returns, and it's not particularly high.

A fully participatory democracy would be a lot more valuable, but that requires far more investment than just voting once every couple of years. In ancient Athens, people who could vote were expected to engage in staggering amounts of public service -- their juries alone had 200 to 1,500 members! The iconic New England townhall was similar. But we've lost that level of personal and collective responsibility. Instead people vote, or tweet, or send prayers, or upvote something, and think they've done their duty to make the world better.

[Trond]

I don't know who Pat's favorite politician is, but I bet his political opponent hopes that Pat spreads those ideas around some more, you know, among his friends and like-minded. 

[Elfdart]

I charged swiftly through the gathered crowd, up to their little stage, and grabbed the American flag out of this fucker's hands. I had my fist raised, and he exclaimed to me, demanding that I give the American flag back to him. I told him straight to his face that I would kill him right there before God and everyone if he desecrated the American flag. Several other students sought to take the flag from my grip, and I snarled at them, holding the flag tightly, "Who wants to die first?"

No doubt this happened right after his date with his incredibly hot girlfriend whom no one has ever seen ("She's from... Canada!").

We%u2019re all just posting on the Internet Misty.  I%u2019ll give you props for more than that when you post a video of yourself calling shark a dumbass to his face.

If there's anything more pathetic than Baby Shark's tough guy act, it's watching someone trying to play Chester to his Spike.

If you want to hold the coat for AncientGamer1970/KewlMarine's severely retarded cousin...

Well, that's not as cool as you think it is.

And for the record, Baby Shark, just because you masturbate to re-runs of Gomer Pyle USMC doesn't make you the second coming of John Basilone.

The neocon grift over the base, where corporate welfare and globalism get taken care of, while the base gets to see their kids die in sand wars for Boeing%u2019s stock price, is more at-risk than ever.

You say this as though we had Jimmy Carter in the White House these last four years. Trump was more than happy to continue with Obama's war in Yemen, and is even now doing his best to start a new one with Iran. His only major change towards Syria was ditching the Kurds and sending US troops to seize Syrian oil facilities. Bernie Sanders, he is not.

Never seen leftists so damn eager to charge back into the furnace that is the Middle East. I wonder where they dumped Cindy Sheehan after they'd shot their wad with her. Hope they at least left some money on the dresser.

The fact that you are too stupid and/or too dishonest to know the difference between a leftist, a liberal and a Democratic party hack is quite telling. If you want to know what leftists think about Biden's election, check out Jimmy Dore or Katie Halper. If you're interested in the opinions of liberals, TYT is a good place to start, as is the Thom Hartmann Show. If you want to know what DNC establishment-types think, you can tune in to MSNBC. While there is some overlap, pretending they are one and the same makes you a moron.

[EOTB]

Trump was more than happy to continue with Obama's war in Yemen, and is even now doing his best to start a new one with Iran. His only major change towards Syria was ditching the Kurds and sending US troops to seize Syrian oil facilities. Bernie Sanders, he is not.

...

While there is some overlap, pretending they are one and the [same] makes you a moron.

When you have to finish their posts so the insults make sense, they're not sending their best.

[SHARK]

I charged swiftly through the gathered crowd, up to their little stage, and grabbed the American flag out of this fucker's hands. I had my fist raised, and he exclaimed to me, demanding that I give the American flag back to him. I told him straight to his face that I would kill him right there before God and everyone if he desecrated the American flag. Several other students sought to take the flag from my grip, and I snarled at them, holding the flag tightly, "Who wants to die first?"

No doubt this happened right after his date with his incredibly hot girlfriend whom no one has ever seen ("She's from... Canada!").

We%u2019re all just posting on the Internet Misty.  I%u2019ll give you props for more than that when you post a video of yourself calling shark a dumbass to his face.

If there's anything more pathetic than Baby Shark's tough guy act, it's watching someone trying to play Chester to his Spike.

If you want to hold the coat for AncientGamer1970/KewlMarine's severely retarded cousin...

Well, that's not as cool as you think it is.

And for the record, Baby Shark, just because you masturbate to re-runs of Gomer Pyle USMC doesn't make you the second coming of John Basilone.

The neocon grift over the base, where corporate welfare and globalism get taken care of, while the base gets to see their kids die in sand wars for Boeing%u2019s stock price, is more at-risk than ever.

You say this as though we had Jimmy Carter in the White House these last four years. Trump was more than happy to continue with Obama's war in Yemen, and is even now doing his best to start a new one with Iran. His only major change towards Syria was ditching the Kurds and sending US troops to seize Syrian oil facilities. Bernie Sanders, he is not.

Never seen leftists so damn eager to charge back into the furnace that is the Middle East. I wonder where they dumped Cindy Sheehan after they'd shot their wad with her. Hope they at least left some money on the dresser.

The fact that you are too stupid and/or too dishonest to know the difference between a leftist, a liberal and a Democratic party hack is quite telling. If you want to know what leftists think about Biden's election, check out Jimmy Dore or Katie Halper. If you're interested in the opinions of liberals, TYT is a good place to start, as is the Thom Hartmann Show. If you want to know what DNC establishment-types think, you can tune in to MSNBC. While there is some overlap, pretending they are one and the same makes you a moron.

Greetings!

*Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[VisionStorm]

The bill that should've been passed years ago, before election time came around, brought to you by the only Democrat worth something (who's unfortunately on her way out, since she already said she's isn't running for reelection, likely cuz she doesn't want anything to do with the Democraps anymore).

[Pat]

You say this as though we had Jimmy Carter in the White House these last four years. Trump was more than happy to continue with Obama's war in Yemen, and is even now doing his best to start a new one with Iran. His only major change towards Syria was ditching the Kurds and sending US troops to seize Syrian oil facilities. Bernie Sanders, he is not.

Trump didn't start any new wars, scaled back the troops overseas, met peacefully with North Korea, and arranged peace agreements between multiple Arab states and Israel. He's certainly no pacifistic ideal, but if you're in favor of peace and getting the US out of pointless wars, he's literally the best president we've had since Carter. It's the reason why Ron Paul-style libertarians have positive things to say about Trump, because while he's terrible on the issue most associated with them (monetary and fiscal policy), Murray Rothbard always considered a non-interventionist foreign policy to be more important than any domestic issues.

[GameDaddy]

Trump didn't start any new wars, scaled back the troops overseas, met peacefully with North Korea, and arranged peace agreements between multiple Arab states and Israel. He's certainly no pacifistic ideal, but if you're in favor of peace and getting the US out of pointless wars, he's literally the best president we've had since Carter. It's the reason why Ron Paul-style libertarians have positive things to say about Trump, because while he's terrible on the issue most associated with them (monetary and fiscal policy), Murray Rothbard always considered a non-interventionist foreign policy to be more important than any domestic issues.

He did start some new wars. More US Troops were dispatched and ops have been ramped up in Africa. One can't "peacefully" meet with North Korea, that is actually impossible as the state of war continues to exist between the Koreas with the U.S. taking an active role in defending the South. The fact that he kissed the A$$ of a dictator is nothing to be proud of, and in fact, shames our country, and the people that died defending against North Korean aggression. In fact he has kissed the A$$ of all the Dictators, because he is one of them, not even pretending not to be so.

The Mid-east Peace agreements is interesting. If we learned anything about the Mideast though, it is that peace does not last there. Know this, prepare accordingly.

Donald Trump is the worst President in History, and I shouldn't even have to tell you that. He has promoted rights of the State over Individual rights, divided this country, unified the bigots, fascists, and predatory capitalists in business leading an orgy of destruction, mayhem, and disarray through major cities, and placed our country on the precipice of a second civil war.

Two good things he did manage to accomplish, he outed the dysfunctional and divided Republican party, clearly showing the people the narcissism of that group. He got us out of the Paris Accords, which like Nato, is the Europeans feeble attempt to control the United States. Every other thing he has done though has damaged Liberty and Justice for all, and promoted the Liberty and Justice of a few.

[jeff37923]

I charged swiftly through the gathered crowd, up to their little stage, and grabbed the American flag out of this fucker's hands. I had my fist raised, and he exclaimed to me, demanding that I give the American flag back to him. I told him straight to his face that I would kill him right there before God and everyone if he desecrated the American flag. Several other students sought to take the flag from my grip, and I snarled at them, holding the flag tightly, "Who wants to die first?"

No doubt this happened right after his date with his incredibly hot girlfriend whom no one has ever seen ("She's from... Canada!").

We%u2019re all just posting on the Internet Misty.  I%u2019ll give you props for more than that when you post a video of yourself calling shark a dumbass to his face.

If there's anything more pathetic than Baby Shark's tough guy act, it's watching someone trying to play Chester to his Spike.

If you want to hold the coat for AncientGamer1970/KewlMarine's severely retarded cousin...

Well, that's not as cool as you think it is.

And for the record, Baby Shark, just because you masturbate to re-runs of Gomer Pyle USMC doesn't make you the second coming of John Basilone.

The neocon grift over the base, where corporate welfare and globalism get taken care of, while the base gets to see their kids die in sand wars for Boeing%u2019s stock price, is more at-risk than ever.

You say this as though we had Jimmy Carter in the White House these last four years. Trump was more than happy to continue with Obama's war in Yemen, and is even now doing his best to start a new one with Iran. His only major change towards Syria was ditching the Kurds and sending US troops to seize Syrian oil facilities. Bernie Sanders, he is not.

Never seen leftists so damn eager to charge back into the furnace that is the Middle East. I wonder where they dumped Cindy Sheehan after they'd shot their wad with her. Hope they at least left some money on the dresser.

The fact that you are too stupid and/or too dishonest to know the difference between a leftist, a liberal and a Democratic party hack is quite telling. If you want to know what leftists think about Biden's election, check out Jimmy Dore or Katie Halper. If you're interested in the opinions of liberals, TYT is a good place to start, as is the Thom Hartmann Show. If you want to know what DNC establishment-types think, you can tune in to MSNBC. While there is some overlap, pretending they are one and the same makes you a moron.

Could someone please change Elfdart's diaper?! He shat himself, again!

[Pat]

He did start some new wars. More US Troops were dispatched and ops have been ramped up in Africa. One can't "peacefully" meet with North Korea, that is actually impossible as the state of war continues to exist between the Koreas with the U.S. taking an active role in defending the South. The fact that he kissed the A$$ of a dictator is nothing to be proud of, and in fact, shames our country, and the people that died defending against North Korean aggression. In fact he has kissed the A$$ of all the Dictators, because he is one of them, not even pretending not to be so.

The Mid-east Peace agreements is interesting. If we learned anything about the Mideast though, it is that peace does not last there. Know this, prepare accordingly.

Which countries in Africa? Because while he didn't get the US out of Somalia, he did reduce the number of troops. And you can certainly meet peacefully with an enemy, that's how armistices happen. Quick question: How do you feel about Obama's pact with Iran, or opening up relations with Cuba?

I'm less interested in the durability of the peace agreements in the Mideast than that they happened at all. It's a sign of a fundamental shift in the region, and seemingly a positive one. If the US could just end all their military adventurism....

Donald Trump is the worst President in History, and I shouldn't even have to tell you that.

No, it's useful information. I wasn't aware you had TDS.

[VisionStorm]

Trump didn't start any new wars, scaled back the troops overseas, met peacefully with North Korea, and arranged peace agreements between multiple Arab states and Israel. He's certainly no pacifistic ideal, but if you're in favor of peace and getting the US out of pointless wars, he's literally the best president we've had since Carter. It's the reason why Ron Paul-style libertarians have positive things to say about Trump, because while he's terrible on the issue most associated with them (monetary and fiscal policy), Murray Rothbard always considered a non-interventionist foreign policy to be more important than any domestic issues.

*snip*

Donald Trump is the worst President in History, and I shouldn't even have to tell you that.

*snip*

Except that you do, because just two decades ago we had one president (the actual worst President in History) who started two illegal wars that ended in hundreds of thousands (if not millions over the years) of deaths and the devastation of multiple countries in the Middle East, sank the US from the highest surplus in the nation's history to its greatest debt ever, started the militarization of police, enacted the Patriot Act, stirred up even more terrorist groups in the process, which ultimately led to masses of refugees fleeing the Middle East into Europe (where more terrorist attacks happened), followed up by another president who continued on his policies, started even more wars and destroyed even more Middle Eastern countries, expanded on the Patriot Act and NSA powers, and granted the President the power to order extrajudicial killings of US citizens (a power Trump never actually used, that I'm aware of). Yet in order to make the claim that Trump is the "worst President in History" you have to rely on the arbitrary assertion that Trump did start wars because "vague, unspecified ops happened in Africa", that you can't peacefully meet with someone you're technically at war with (despite a meeting taking place without a single shot being fired and the two countries not being in open conflict), emotional appeals about "kissing the ass of Dictators" (as opposed to what? Bombing the shit out of North Korea cuz they're under the thumb of a dictator?) and vague allusions to Trump "unifying" bigots, fascists, etc., which are all meaningless buzzwords that the media has completely wiped their ass with arbitrarily applied to countless masses of people, including some I've been involved with (such as GamerGate). All of which apparently trump (pun!) all the actual horrendous shit that the two preceding Presidents did, all because Trump hurts your delicate sensibilities.

That is the definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[oggsmash]

This woman is really into posting videos lately.

The woman in question is Cynthia A. Johnson, a Michigan legislator. Her previous video posted about here was taken out of context. I would not be surprised if the same were true of thw one EOTB now posts.
https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/trump-supporters-lobbed-vile-racist-threats-democratic-official-then

For instance, one of our bright citizens of our country, in Illinois, who happened to voicemail me — unknown, but guess what? FBI, state police, they found her.

So, this is just a warning to you Trumpers — be careful, walk lightly. We ain't playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay.

The context is that she was threatened, and one of the people doing so was identified by law enforcement; the warning to Trump supporters is about the legal consequences they risk. Also note that she's a state legislator in Michigan, where right wing terrorists wanted to kidnap and execute the governor, so it's probably harder to shrug off death threats.

By the way, the soldiers she asks, repeatedly, to "do it right" are allied activists; from a previous video:

But I wanted to share something with the soldiers — all you soldiers, soldiers of Christ, soldiers against racism, soldiers against misogyny, soldiers against domestic violence and domestic terrorism. Soldiers, rise. It's time for you to rise.

I personally think her militant tone goes too far, but I haven't had a hundred death threats directed at me in the past week.

  LOL...right wing terrorists?  You mean the anarchy guys with 3 FBI agents among their ranks?  Are you really falling for that one?  Right wing terrorists DO NOT KIDNAP people.

[oggsmash]

  I guess its project mayhem then.  Oh well, the USA had a good run. 

[Jaeger]

...
18 states in this country know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cheated. 18 entire states are standing up to the fraudulent Democrat party. This has never happened in the history of America. Media & tech are in overdrive trying to censor the truth. The Left is terrified.
...

They are terrified because they know what they did.

And they know that consequences will follow if they do not force Trump out.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

Texas doesn't hesitate to shoot right back at the assertions made by the four states about its claims. This is just the first section, which deals with the various assertions made in the four responses that Texas's claims have no basis in fact:

Defendant States' factual defense of the administration of the 2020 election lacks merit. Thus, Texas states a claim on those issues.

A. Pennsylvania's critiques of the evidence are false.

Pennsylvania attacks Dr. Cicchetti's probability analysis calculating that the statistical chances of Mr. Biden's winning the election in the Defendant States individually and collectively, given the known facts, are less than one in a quadrillion. Penn. Br. 6-8. Pennsylvania argues that Dr Cicchetti did not take into account that "votes counted later were indisputably not 'randomly drawn' from the same population of votes" in his analysis.  Penn. Br. 6-8.

Pennsylvania is wrong.

First, Dr. Cicchetti did take into account the possibility that votes were not randomly drawn in the later time period but, as stated in his original Declaration, he is not aware of any data that would support such an assertion. See Supplemental Declaration of Charles Cicchetti ("Supp. Cicchetti Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3. (App. 152a-153a). Second, although Pennsylvania argues that such data is "indisputabl[e]", Pennsylvania offers in support nothing other than counsel's assertion. Unsworn statements of counsel, however, are not evidence. See Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 503 (1948).

In fact, Pennsylvania's rebuttal to Dr. Cicchetti's analysis consists solely of ad hominem attacks, calling it "nonsense" and "worthless".  Penn Br. 6, 8. Notably, a subsequent analysis by Dr. Cicchetti, comparing Mr. Biden's underperformance in the Top-50 urban areas in the Country relative to former Secretary Clinton's performance in the 2016 election, reinforces the unusual statistical improbability of Mr. Biden's vote totals in the five urban areas in the Defendant States. See Supp. Cicchetti Decl. at ¶¶ 4-12, 20-21. (App. 154a-158a).

Pennsylvania also tries to explain away the reported 400,000 discrepancy between the number of mail-in ballots Pennsylvania sent out as reported on November 2, 2020 (2.7 million) and the figure reported on November 4, 2020 (3.1 million) as described in the Ryan Report. Penn. Br. 6-8; Compl. ¶ 59.

Pennsylvania again conclusorily asserts that the discrepancy is purportedly due to the fact that "

• f the 3.1 million ballots sent out, 2.7 million were mail-in ballots and 400,000 were absentee ballots." Pennsylvania Br. 6.  However, as fifteen Pennsylvania legislators stated in the Ryan Report, signed on December 4, 2020: "This discrepancy ... has not been explained." Compl. ¶ 59. Compl. ¶ 59 (App. 143a-44a).
  
  The Ryan Report states further: "This apparent discrepancy can only be evaluated by reviewing all transaction logs into the SURE system..." (App. 144a). Pennsylvania's unsupported explanation has no merit.
  
  Notably, Pennsylvania says nothing about the 118,426 ballots that had no mail date, were nonsensically returned before the mailed date, or were improbably returned one day after the mail date. Lastly, Pennsylvania argues that it did not break its promise to this Court to segregate ballots received after November 3, 2020.  Penn. Br. 6.  Justice Alito's order dated November 6, 2020 belies that argument. See Compl. ¶ 8.  And because Pennsylvania broke its promise to this Court, it is not possible to determine how many tens, or even hundreds of thousands of illegal late ballots were wrongfully counted. Compl. ¶ 55.
  
  B. Georgia's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Georgia argues that the "[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged" as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) ("Wood"). Georgia Br. 4.  Georgia's reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 13-19. (App. 158a-60a). Georgia's rejection rate comparison is therefore inapposite.  Id.
  
  Specifically, the district court in Wood cited to "ECF 33-6" (id. at n.30) which is the affidavit of Chris Harvey, Georgia Director of Elections.  First, the Harvey Affidavit itself does not cite any evidence for signature rejection rates; rather, it relies solely upon a complaint in an unrelated action. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. (App. 158a-59a) (citing Democratic Party of Georgia et al. v. Raffensperger).   Second, as explained by Dr. Cicchetti, the Harvey Affidavit relies on 2018 data which does not provide an accurate comparison with a presidential election year. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. (App. 160a-62a).  More importantly, the Harvey affidavit discusses absentee ballots—not mail-in ballots at issue here and as analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti.  Mail-in ballots are subject to much higher rejection rates. Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute Dr. Cicchetti's analysis. .  Id. at ¶¶ 16-18. (App. 159a-60a).   In short, Georgia's attempt to rebut Dr. Cicchetti's analysis fails. Id. ¶ 22. (App. 161a-62a).
  
  C. Michigan's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Michigan's argument against the evidence of irregularities in Wayne County's election process fares no better.  First, Michigan concedes that, with respect to the ballots issued pursuant to the Secretary of State's unlawful mailing of ballot applications and online ballot applications—which also did not comply with statutory signature verification requirements— "there is no way to associate the voter who used a particular application with his or her ballot after it is voted." Mich. Br. 9; Compl. ¶¶ 81-87. Michigan's "heads we win, tails you lose" defense should be rejected.  This is a problem solely of the Secretary of State's own making.
  
  Michigan also admits that it "is at a loss to explain the[] allegations" showing that Wayne County lists 174,384 absentee ballots that do not tie to a registered voter.  Mich. Br. 15; Compl. ¶ 97.  That is precisely the point.  And it illustrates exactly why the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion.
  
  Similarly, Michigan's argument that the fact that 71% of Detroit's Absent Voter Counting Boards ("AVCBs") were unbalanced provides no basis not to certify results is false. Mich. Br. 16.  In fact, while Michigan asserts that this "can happen for a number of innocuous reasons" it nonetheless offers no explanation for the highly suspicious circumstances: that this out of balance situation resulted in more than 174,000 votes not being tied to a registered voter; that two members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers initially voted against certification based on these issues, then voted in favor of certification after receiving both threats and assurances of an immediate audit; and then rescinded their certification votes after the promised audit was refused.  Compl. ¶¶ 99-101. Texas understands that these issues involving Wayne County's irregular votes have not been adjudicated, and Michigan does not contend otherwise. But it is suggestive at this preliminary stage of the proceeding.
  
  Lastly, Michigan's attempts to argue away the evidence showing that Wayne County had a policy of not performing signature verifications as required under MCL § 168.765a(6) are misplaced. Mich. Br. 14-15; Compl. ¶¶ 85-87, 92-95.  Michigan cites the affidavit of Christopher Thomas, a consultant for Detroit, used in litigation in Michigan state court, as evidence for its assertion. Mich. Br. 11, 15-16.
  
  Thomas, however, does not state that he personally observed signatures being verified in accordance with MCL § 168.765a(6).  That statute requires that the clerk place a "written statement" or "stamp" on each ballot envelope where the voter signature is placed, indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the State. Compl. ¶ 92.  Thus, contrary to Michigan's argument, Thomas' assertions do not rebut the testimony of Jessy Jacob, a decades-long City of Detroit employee stating that election workers were instructed not to compare signatures. Id. ¶ 94.  In fact, a poll challenger, Lisa Gage, testified in an affidavit that has not been submitted in any prior litigation, that not a single one of the several hundred to a thousand ballot envelopes she observed had a written statement or stamp indicating the voter signature had been verified at the TCF Center in accordance with MCL § 168.765a(6). Affidavit of Lisa Gage ¶ 17. (App. 165a).
  
  D. Wisconsin's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Wisconsin argues that "Texas offers no proof of a single voter who cast a ballot in the general election who did not qualify for indefinite confinement status."  Wisc. Br. 31. Under Wisconsin law, "indefinite confinement status" allows a voter to avoid Wisconsin's statutory photo identification and signature verification requirements.  Compl. ¶¶ 115-17. The number of people claiming this special status exploded from fewer than 57,000 voters in 2016 to nearly 216,000 in 2020.  Compl. ¶ 122.  Wisconsin claims this increase was due to more people voting by mail in 2020.  Wisc. Br. 31.
  
  Voting by mail, however, has nothing to do with being classified as "indefinitely confined." Wisconsin offers no plausible justification for this nearly four-fold increase in voters claiming this special status. 
  
  Wisconsin also ignores the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that clerks in Dane County and Milwaukee County had earlier violated Wisconsin law by issuing guidance stating that all voters should identify themselves as "indefinitely confined" on absentee ballot applications because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Compl. ¶¶ 118-19.  Despite that order, the WEC again violated Wisconsin law and issued a directive to the Wisconsin clerks prohibiting removal of voters from the registry for indefinite-confinement status even if the voter is no longer "indefinitely confined," thereby cementing this improper practice in the 2020 general election. Id. at ¶¶ 120-21.
  
  Lastly, Wisconsin ignores the sworn testimony of Ethan J. Pease, a box truck delivery driver subcontracted to the U.S. Postal Service ("USPS") to deliver truckloads of mail-in ballots to the sorting center in Madison, WI, who testified that USPS employees were backdating ballots received after November 3, 2020.  Compl. ¶127. (App. 149a-151a).
  
  Further, Pease testified how a senior USPS employee told him on November 4, 2020 that "An order came down from the Wisconsin/Illinois Chapter of the Postal Service that 100,000 ballots" had been misplaced and described how the USPS dispatched employees to "find[] ... the ballots." Id. (App. 150a).

The DNC and their Rino allies has been caught. They Know they have been caught.

Any rational person who looks at the evidence given knows shenanigans went down, and at a minimum every closely contested state should have had a complete forensic audit done of their election results.

If at this point you still think Biden won fair and square, you are willingly part of the lie.

You have updated his routine to fit the modern information age, but we know who's advice you are following:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as Big tech and the Mainstream Media can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for Big tech and the Mainstream Media to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Left."

[HappyDaze]

...
18 states in this country know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cheated. 18 entire states are standing up to the fraudulent Democrat party. This has never happened in the history of America. Media & tech are in overdrive trying to censor the truth. The Left is terrified.
...

They are terrified because they know what they did.

And they know that consequences will follow if they do not force Trump out.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

Texas doesn't hesitate to shoot right back at the assertions made by the four states about its claims. This is just the first section, which deals with the various assertions made in the four responses that Texas's claims have no basis in fact:

Defendant States' factual defense of the administration of the 2020 election lacks merit. Thus, Texas states a claim on those issues.

A. Pennsylvania's critiques of the evidence are false.

Pennsylvania attacks Dr. Cicchetti's probability analysis calculating that the statistical chances of Mr. Biden's winning the election in the Defendant States individually and collectively, given the known facts, are less than one in a quadrillion. Penn. Br. 6-8. Pennsylvania argues that Dr Cicchetti did not take into account that "votes counted later were indisputably not 'randomly drawn' from the same population of votes" in his analysis.  Penn. Br. 6-8.

Pennsylvania is wrong.

First, Dr. Cicchetti did take into account the possibility that votes were not randomly drawn in the later time period but, as stated in his original Declaration, he is not aware of any data that would support such an assertion. See Supplemental Declaration of Charles Cicchetti ("Supp. Cicchetti Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3. (App. 152a-153a). Second, although Pennsylvania argues that such data is "indisputabl[e]", Pennsylvania offers in support nothing other than counsel's assertion. Unsworn statements of counsel, however, are not evidence. See Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 503 (1948).

In fact, Pennsylvania's rebuttal to Dr. Cicchetti's analysis consists solely of ad hominem attacks, calling it "nonsense" and "worthless".  Penn Br. 6, 8. Notably, a subsequent analysis by Dr. Cicchetti, comparing Mr. Biden's underperformance in the Top-50 urban areas in the Country relative to former Secretary Clinton's performance in the 2016 election, reinforces the unusual statistical improbability of Mr. Biden's vote totals in the five urban areas in the Defendant States. See Supp. Cicchetti Decl. at ¶¶ 4-12, 20-21. (App. 154a-158a).

Pennsylvania also tries to explain away the reported 400,000 discrepancy between the number of mail-in ballots Pennsylvania sent out as reported on November 2, 2020 (2.7 million) and the figure reported on November 4, 2020 (3.1 million) as described in the Ryan Report. Penn. Br. 6-8; Compl. ¶ 59.

Pennsylvania again conclusorily asserts that the discrepancy is purportedly due to the fact that "

• f the 3.1 million ballots sent out, 2.7 million were mail-in ballots and 400,000 were absentee ballots." Pennsylvania Br. 6.  However, as fifteen Pennsylvania legislators stated in the Ryan Report, signed on December 4, 2020: "This discrepancy ... has not been explained." Compl. ¶ 59. Compl. ¶ 59 (App. 143a-44a).
  
  The Ryan Report states further: "This apparent discrepancy can only be evaluated by reviewing all transaction logs into the SURE system..." (App. 144a). Pennsylvania's unsupported explanation has no merit.
  
  Notably, Pennsylvania says nothing about the 118,426 ballots that had no mail date, were nonsensically returned before the mailed date, or were improbably returned one day after the mail date. Lastly, Pennsylvania argues that it did not break its promise to this Court to segregate ballots received after November 3, 2020.  Penn. Br. 6.  Justice Alito's order dated November 6, 2020 belies that argument. See Compl. ¶ 8.  And because Pennsylvania broke its promise to this Court, it is not possible to determine how many tens, or even hundreds of thousands of illegal late ballots were wrongfully counted. Compl. ¶ 55.
  
  B. Georgia's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Georgia argues that the "[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged" as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) ("Wood"). Georgia Br. 4.  Georgia's reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 13-19. (App. 158a-60a). Georgia's rejection rate comparison is therefore inapposite.  Id.
  
  Specifically, the district court in Wood cited to "ECF 33-6" (id. at n.30) which is the affidavit of Chris Harvey, Georgia Director of Elections.  First, the Harvey Affidavit itself does not cite any evidence for signature rejection rates; rather, it relies solely upon a complaint in an unrelated action. Supp. Cicchetti Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. (App. 158a-59a) (citing Democratic Party of Georgia et al. v. Raffensperger).   Second, as explained by Dr. Cicchetti, the Harvey Affidavit relies on 2018 data which does not provide an accurate comparison with a presidential election year. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. (App. 160a-62a).  More importantly, the Harvey affidavit discusses absentee ballots—not mail-in ballots at issue here and as analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti.  Mail-in ballots are subject to much higher rejection rates. Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute Dr. Cicchetti's analysis. .  Id. at ¶¶ 16-18. (App. 159a-60a).   In short, Georgia's attempt to rebut Dr. Cicchetti's analysis fails. Id. ¶ 22. (App. 161a-62a).
  
  C. Michigan's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Michigan's argument against the evidence of irregularities in Wayne County's election process fares no better.  First, Michigan concedes that, with respect to the ballots issued pursuant to the Secretary of State's unlawful mailing of ballot applications and online ballot applications—which also did not comply with statutory signature verification requirements— "there is no way to associate the voter who used a particular application with his or her ballot after it is voted." Mich. Br. 9; Compl. ¶¶ 81-87. Michigan's "heads we win, tails you lose" defense should be rejected.  This is a problem solely of the Secretary of State's own making.
  
  Michigan also admits that it "is at a loss to explain the[] allegations" showing that Wayne County lists 174,384 absentee ballots that do not tie to a registered voter.  Mich. Br. 15; Compl. ¶ 97.  That is precisely the point.  And it illustrates exactly why the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion.
  
  Similarly, Michigan's argument that the fact that 71% of Detroit's Absent Voter Counting Boards ("AVCBs") were unbalanced provides no basis not to certify results is false. Mich. Br. 16.  In fact, while Michigan asserts that this "can happen for a number of innocuous reasons" it nonetheless offers no explanation for the highly suspicious circumstances: that this out of balance situation resulted in more than 174,000 votes not being tied to a registered voter; that two members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers initially voted against certification based on these issues, then voted in favor of certification after receiving both threats and assurances of an immediate audit; and then rescinded their certification votes after the promised audit was refused.  Compl. ¶¶ 99-101. Texas understands that these issues involving Wayne County's irregular votes have not been adjudicated, and Michigan does not contend otherwise. But it is suggestive at this preliminary stage of the proceeding.
  
  Lastly, Michigan's attempts to argue away the evidence showing that Wayne County had a policy of not performing signature verifications as required under MCL § 168.765a(6) are misplaced. Mich. Br. 14-15; Compl. ¶¶ 85-87, 92-95.  Michigan cites the affidavit of Christopher Thomas, a consultant for Detroit, used in litigation in Michigan state court, as evidence for its assertion. Mich. Br. 11, 15-16.
  
  Thomas, however, does not state that he personally observed signatures being verified in accordance with MCL § 168.765a(6).  That statute requires that the clerk place a "written statement" or "stamp" on each ballot envelope where the voter signature is placed, indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the State. Compl. ¶ 92.  Thus, contrary to Michigan's argument, Thomas' assertions do not rebut the testimony of Jessy Jacob, a decades-long City of Detroit employee stating that election workers were instructed not to compare signatures. Id. ¶ 94.  In fact, a poll challenger, Lisa Gage, testified in an affidavit that has not been submitted in any prior litigation, that not a single one of the several hundred to a thousand ballot envelopes she observed had a written statement or stamp indicating the voter signature had been verified at the TCF Center in accordance with MCL § 168.765a(6). Affidavit of Lisa Gage ¶ 17. (App. 165a).
  
  D. Wisconsin's critiques of the evidence are false.
  
  Wisconsin argues that "Texas offers no proof of a single voter who cast a ballot in the general election who did not qualify for indefinite confinement status."  Wisc. Br. 31. Under Wisconsin law, "indefinite confinement status" allows a voter to avoid Wisconsin's statutory photo identification and signature verification requirements.  Compl. ¶¶ 115-17. The number of people claiming this special status exploded from fewer than 57,000 voters in 2016 to nearly 216,000 in 2020.  Compl. ¶ 122.  Wisconsin claims this increase was due to more people voting by mail in 2020.  Wisc. Br. 31.
  
  Voting by mail, however, has nothing to do with being classified as "indefinitely confined." Wisconsin offers no plausible justification for this nearly four-fold increase in voters claiming this special status. 
  
  Wisconsin also ignores the fact that the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that clerks in Dane County and Milwaukee County had earlier violated Wisconsin law by issuing guidance stating that all voters should identify themselves as "indefinitely confined" on absentee ballot applications because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Compl. ¶¶ 118-19.  Despite that order, the WEC again violated Wisconsin law and issued a directive to the Wisconsin clerks prohibiting removal of voters from the registry for indefinite-confinement status even if the voter is no longer "indefinitely confined," thereby cementing this improper practice in the 2020 general election. Id. at ¶¶ 120-21.
  
  Lastly, Wisconsin ignores the sworn testimony of Ethan J. Pease, a box truck delivery driver subcontracted to the U.S. Postal Service ("USPS") to deliver truckloads of mail-in ballots to the sorting center in Madison, WI, who testified that USPS employees were backdating ballots received after November 3, 2020.  Compl. ¶127. (App. 149a-151a).
  
  Further, Pease testified how a senior USPS employee told him on November 4, 2020 that "An order came down from the Wisconsin/Illinois Chapter of the Postal Service that 100,000 ballots" had been misplaced and described how the USPS dispatched employees to "find[] ... the ballots." Id. (App. 150a).

The DNC and their Rino allies has been caught. They Know they have been caught.

Any rational person who looks at the evidence given knows shenanigans went down, and at a minimum every closely contested state should have had a complete forensic audit done of their election results.

If at this point you still think Biden won fair and square, you are willingly part of the lie.

You have updated his routine to fit the modern information age, but we know who's advice you are following:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as Big tech and the Mainstream Media can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for Big tech and the Mainstream Media to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Left."

You believe that the only possibility is that just one side is being dishonest. You also believe that the only possibility is that it is Biden's side that is being dishonest.

I reject your first premise, which makes the second premise moot. I also reject your "Any rational person" bullshit, because rational people can and will disagree with your point.