2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[murdered meat bag]

Did the audit guy even get a court order for any of this stuff?
All I can find is that he had this: https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-11eb-8f22-4345f7fb2d4a/5fcd41b678552.pdf.pdf
In any case, the time frame doesn't change that the "audit" is including a lot of unnecessary and useless information which calls into question the auditor's technical qualifications.

the auditor is the plaintiff in mi.

timeframe refers to nv

I'll write a sticky note for this post on Jan 6th and Jan 20th.

im glad we agree biden won fraudulently. it took a long time and a lot of effort but ee ginally git s condensus

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

the auditor is the plaintiff in mi.

timeframe refers to nv

im glad we agree biden won fraudulently.

So you're saying that the guy in MI is going to continue his case in April, but that's suspicious because the Nevada case's time frame was much closer?
Dude, they're different states and judges. You go pull up what the "standard operating procedure" is.

Maybe one day it'll get through your skull that failing to make any strong arguments for your side and losing, by all accounts, completely on all levels of investigation and burden of proof shows that you've just been holding onto a sad, pathetic religious belief. I'll be sure to check back in on those dates and see if your piety has been vindicated even the slightest bit, or if you're still just some butthurt loser grasping at straws beyond your reach to get past the point that your savior lost pretty decisively.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

Yes, but you might not like it.

I guess HHH didn't like being shown that every state needs to be audited.

 

[murdered meat bag]

So you're saying that the guy in MI is going to continue his case in April, but that's suspicious because the Nevada case's time frame was much closer?

nope

Dude, they're different states and judges. You go pull up what the "standard operating procedure" is.

yup thats true, good jov

Maybe one day it'll get through your skull that failing to make any strong arguments for your side and losing, by all accounts, completely on all levels of investigation and burden of proof shows that you've just been holding onto a sad, pathetic religious belief.

imagine being this mad because you were outsmarted by a simple syllogism

i'll be sure to check back in on those dates and see if your piety has been vindicated even the slightest bit, or if you're still just some butthurt loser grasping at straws beyond your reach to get past the point that your savior lost pretty decisively.

the democrats had their chance to prove this election was secure and only managed to prove that no foreigners hacked the machine.

come inauguration day, all you will have is the same tiny scope bullshit and nothing that says trump was factually incorrect.

Yes, but you might not like it.

thanks to the poster on the previous i totally missed this.

fraud exists

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

haha, must be maddening to fight for an empty ccause



there are questions about the authority of the senate to issue such subpeona. it'll go to court where it will be dismissed because no one wants to open pandora's box of fruad.

That's ironic coming from the "TRUMP CAN STILL WIN! VOTER FRAUD!" guy who refuses to provide evidence

nope

yup thats true, good jov



the democrats had their chance to prove this election was secure and only managed to prove that no foreigners hacked the machine.

come inauguration day, all you will have is the same tiny scope bullshit and nothing that says trump was factually incorrect.

You are the one claiming the election was fraudulent. You are making extraordinary claims, thus you must provide evidence backing said claims.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the autistic back and forth spergery with "the usual suspects" will become productive. Eventually.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

nope

yup thats true, good jov



the democrats had their chance to prove this election was secure and only managed to prove that no foreigners hacked the machine.

come inauguration day, all you will have is the same tiny scope bullshit and nothing that says trump was factually incorrect.

No, no, that is what you're saying. "Isn't it WEIRD how this guy in this other state got so much more time than this other guy?"

Not a single government official, electoral apparatus, or government body cares that you're not satisfied. You're as pathetic as the people who've been #notmypresident for the last four years, so by all means, enjoy that luxurious existence. You can't even define what a "secure" election would be without spouting something that would suggest literally every election in all of history was not "secure" - solipsism is awfully comforting.

I guess HHH didn't like being shown that every state needs to be audited.

How's the case going? She was charged a long time ago, after all, and apparently has done this for several election cycles for both candidates.
By all means, recount those old ballots - or definitively ID which ones she submitted which were fraudulent. Even if you nullify Texas' entirely election, you... get the same result in terms of the elector votes.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the autistic back and forth spergery with "the usual suspects" will become productive. Eventually.

don't shit on my amusement
There's not going to be any real events for three weeks, and I'm just waiting for people to stop trying to go "aha!" before they bounce off immediately after being called out on it, like @ChefKiss

 

[ChefKiss]

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.

When you are presenting it for consideration in a lawsuit, you just need to make the factual statements about the machine's state and what's in those dominion logs. A judge cannot verify their truth any more or less with the fucking computer address path in the "audit" - the path is relevant when you get to discovery and you can actually have someone verify that you got this from there and it does indeed say that.

Go to page 13 section F and G, tell me what you think is there too

 

[murdered meat bag]

That's ironic coming from the "TRUMP CAN STILL WIN! VOTER FRAUD!" guy who refuses to provide evidence

trump lost due to voter fraud.

You are the one claiming the election was fraudulent. You are making extraordinary claims, thus you must provide evidence backing said claims.

and you're saying this election was legit, see how this doesnt change the premises laid out before?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Go to page 13 section F and G, tell me what you think is there too

Some of the items are not useful to a judge, but they're not completely useless. Mentioning the configuration is fine, as is explaining that the USB interacts with the boot program as well as the means by which you cloned and verified the clone of the drive. It also explains how the server essentially had backups, little things like that. The specific name of the computer isn't completely irrelevant, since that's easy to verify with a phone call.

The images are a little unnecessary, but they aren't offensive like an address path.
Edit portion: I chewed on this a little more. It's not offensive, but it is pretty irrelevant. Why does a judge need to care about how memory addresses were hashed? Why does he care that the stick is linux, or that the hard drive follows a RAID-1 architecture? These are considerations that would be important only to... really say that your clone is identical to the original, which isn't really relevant if during discovery you're going to try to get that original into evidence anyways and no-one's going to double-check to make sure they're identical before then.
It's a lot of unnecessary fluff.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

trump lost due to voter fraud.

and you're saying this election was legit, see how this doesnt change the premises laid out before?

1. Nope. Your daddy lost fair and square. Unless you have evidence indicating otherwise?
2. Nope, you are the one making the extraordinary claims. I know you're autistic and don't understand how the world works, but the person making the claims contrary to what is the prevailing thought are the ones who need to provide the evidence. Similar to if I make a claim that says "murdered meat bag fucks cats", I have to provide evidence backing up the claim because it'd be impossible for you to claim that you don't fuck cats.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Have you ever worked in IT in any jobs other than tier 1 service desk? When I need my printer ink replaced I'll open a ticket for you.

PLEASE TO BE RESTARTING YOUR BRAIN AND RECOGNIZE THAT CERTIFICATION OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE COMBINATION FOR PURPOSE MITIGATE AGAINST ALLOWING RANDOM UPDATES

 

[CrippleThreat]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the autistic back and forth spergery with "the usual suspects" will become productive. Eventually.

Come on, man. They'll eventually show us how the election wasn't fucked by fraud, and not reply to our inquiry with words that rhyme with dope and breathe.

I trust this plan will go smoothly. Stay tuned.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Come on, man. They'll eventually show us how the election wasn't fucked by fraud, and not reply to our inquiry with words that rhyme with dope and breathe.

I trust this plan will go smoothly. Stay tuned.

I am still waiting on you tards to show us this evidence of fraud. So far every investigation that wasn't paid for by Trump has shown no fraud.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

Literally the only thing that would placate people on the issue of fraud at this point is a SCOTUS ruling and that ship has sailed, either because Ted Cruz is a moron or he didn't actually want it ruled on. There is no other explanation for why he filed the case as he did.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Literally the only thing that would placate people on the issue of fraud at this point is a SCOTUS ruling and that ship has sailed, either because Ted Cruz is a moron or he didn't actually want it ruled on. There is no other explanation for why he filed the case as he did.

Did he file it? I thought it was the Texas AG that filed it, and Cruz offered to argue it - but it never got to arguments.

 

[murdered meat bag]

1. Evidence to support your claim is needed.

rae is going over evidence now. a 12hr.video was given to you.

point 1 fulfilled.

2. Nope, you are the one making the extraordinary claims. I know you're autistic and don't understand how the world works, but the person making the claims contrary to what is the prevailing thought are the ones who need to provide the evidence.

"election was secure" isnt a prevailing thought or a null hypothesis.
1.) there are safeguards and procedures to go through before the start of an election.

2.) there are safeguards and procedures to go through during the election

3.) there are safeguards and procedures to go through after an election.

4.) records are kept during 1,2,3.

5.) the records determine one way or another.

similar to if I make a claim that says "murdered meat bag fucks cats", I have to provide evidence backing up the claim because it'd be impossible for you to claim that you don't fuck cats.

i could show you an dna test of every cat on earth to prove i didnt fuck any of them. something like that. with enough data you can prove a negative.

of course the problem in this election is that no one wants to show us the data.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

PLEASE TO BE RESTARTING YOUR BRAIN AND RECOGNIZE THAT CERTIFICATION OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE COMBINATION FOR PURPOSE MITIGATE AGAINST ALLOWING RANDOM UPDATES

Is that what they teach you at the Tehran College of IT and Goat Fondling? Certification is a bureaucratic process that doesn't magically make a computer secure.

 

[murdered meat bag]

Is that what they teach you at the Tehran College of IT and Goat Fondling? Certification is a bureaucratic process that doesn't magically make a computer secure.

see also this election re' wayne county, coffee county

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Is that what they teach you at the Tehran College of IT and Goat Fondling? Certification is a bureaucratic process that doesn't magically make a computer secure.

He's saying that if you upgrade the software, it is no longer certified and requires recertification.
Essentially that this is more of a problem with the process itself and the oversight thereof, and less with specific actors intentionally choosing not to have the most recent upgrade.