But what about mowing the democrats with bullets using the Insurrection Act? Psycho leftists aren't immune to led, and at least neo Kent State wouldn't be lionized as heavily due to it being insane retards and smartphone cameras existing (as much as Google will try its hardest to purge videos everywhere).
You'll have to wait until he gets the next set of talking points off Twitter.
All that says is that threats work and if you're a big enough tard you'll get your way.
Ah, so it's not about a malicious update server, just that the machine hasn't picked up new updates from the WSUS server for a while now, indicating that it missed some critical updates. When they ran updates on 04-10-19 it showed that available updates on the WSUS server were on version 10.9.1 when it should've been 11.6.1 instead, meaning that the WSUS server itself is behind on updates. It's autistic but makes sense.
yes, the windows update on the voting machine (10.9.1) is older than the one available on wsusoffline (11.6.1).
Sure. The assertion on that page is that the WSUS offline update is out of date. The first bullet point is a basically a printout of the process being run which shows off the update version. The next three bullet points are complete noise, with the fifth - stating that the update version in question is old - is the only relevant thing you need.
I don't have an issue with that assertion, or with their having made that argument. It's simply that the middle three bullet points add no relevant information.
Bad infosec is a feature of every organization that has middle aged women and men in it, which is every single one. To people over 40 that aren’t in a tech field, computers are fucking magic they don’t understand.
Fraud only happens where Trump lost. Where he won, it was 100% legit because in fact every single person in this country voted for him.
Pretty much. The worst thing about this is that at this point you've got a weird sort of anocracy. The media can just decide Biden is elected, Democrats can stuff ballots, and then the media can tell people to riot if a court rules that ballot stuffing occurred. And social media can just delete any evidence people post.
It's not only not implausible, it's very plausible. Roberts is a coward, as we've seen multiple times. If it wasn't the threats of physical violence it was the threats of court packing. The irony is, the Democrats are going to pack the courts anyway now that they've got what they wanted and I daresay the conservative justices, even Roberts, will be targeted once there's no Trump to protect them.
The thing about a Trump concession, especially now after he's alleged voter fraud, is that his base are so angry that, if he did concede, they'd turn on him. Even if he'd conceded in the beginning, they'd still turn on him. The people are angry and concession is not going to prevent what's coming next.
if it's not in there a judge will go "where did you get this information? This is unsourced and so unreliable, i dimiss".
Of course! Sure, Lindsay Graham tried to convince the Georgia officials to overturn their results, but I am sure that he'd never do anything like election fraud because he's a Republican and Trump supporter, so thus, he's gotta be 100% innocent.
Open up those addresses in your computer right now. Do it right now. Did it work? Ah, it didn't, right? You're saying a judge is going to try to do this.
Whether or not this 'audit' goes anywhere hinges completely on the qualifications of the person that ran it, basically. Because you have to believe that these results are credible before you allow someone to go to discovery with them as a pretense (or get a government committee to do something similar). Those lines aren't necessary, but they do make it look like the guy running the audit was just throwing shit in there that looked important regardless of what it actually was.
The standing argument begins on the third page. Read it.
This actually gets him past the main obstacle that gets these cases thrown out, as he has at least theoretical standing. He's also least making something regarding factual allegations although as with most of these things, the court isn't just going to give him the office by awarding him 100% of the votes regardless of what the actual voters wanted. Of course the factual allegations are from a guy who claims to have invented email because he apparently wrote a program called EMAIL ten years after email actually already existed. He's not got a strong grasp on the truth.
He's not even going to do that. He's going to look at the audit, say "where did this data come from?" and then rule it isn't credible. judges have done with written affidavits in other cases.