@coldjoint,
It is a shame they didn't hire a foreign judge to write that report. At least then the report wouldn't be laden with biased and misleading language, and missing information. On the first few pages- the Executive Summary alone:
1. Missing Information: for this type of report, complaining of patterns of irregularlities, they really should have done another 4 states (summarised with links) for comparison
Assessing only the states you are complaining about, saying there were irregularities in these states, and these patterns show X...without showing at least another 4, gives no ability on anyones part to say if this the same across the whole election, or if contrary to that, these States were hand chosen because not because of irregularities, but because they were the closest states, and the normal level of irregularities could be used to form an argument.
2. Missing was the statement 'they were almost all dismissed' from his actual statement
"Evidence used to conduct this assessment includes more than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings"
Which lost lawsuits are very obviously against his reports findings...and conspiciously left out of the Executive Summary which is the only thing many will read...
3. Report discrepancies:
-
This was theft by a thousand cuts (an outright statement); vs
-
the election may well have been stolen (a maybe statement); and
-
it is possible to infer what may well have been a coordinated
strategy to effectively stack the election deck (a possibility statement)
The outright theft statement implies the author wants to believe that statement, but is trying to appear fair and impartial....
4. Should have been separated, as keeping them together is misleading:
"- it is irresponsible for anyone – especially the mainstream media – to claim there is “no evidence” of fraud or irregularities "
Fraud and irregularities are very different things. However the language infers the author sees little to no difference between the two...
5.
"Both State courts and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have failed the American people in refusing to appropriately adjudicate the election irregularities that have come before them. "
- He leaves out the numbers of courts that have tossed out the law suits knowing that goes against his findings.
- He leaves out even the SCOTUS has ruled against him.
- He fails to acknowledge that the courts role is to view the evidence presented to them, rather than find the evidence...and
if there is any failure, it is the failure of Trumps lawyers, rather than the courts.
- He fails to acknowledge he is an economist, and doesn't understand the rules of evidence as each of those judges do.
Then with the start of the actual report, there are already problems on the first page:
1. He talks about the pattern of substantial leads vanishing, while failing to acknowledge:
- vote counting laws (some of those States have laws requiring mail in ballots to only be counted on election day); and
- Party directions (Republicans told to vote in person, Democrats told to vote by mail)
2. He includes this riduculous paragraph:
"There was an equally interesting story unfolding in Arizona and Nevada. While Joe Biden was ahead in these two additional battleground states on election night – by just over 30,000 votes in Nevada and less than 150,000 votes in Arizona – internal Trump Campaign polls predicted the President would close these gaps once all the votes were counted. Of course, this never happened."
There is nothing interesting about that. The internal Trump Campaign Polls simply got it wrong. Polls have been known to do that from time to time. They predicted Hilary would win the last one.
3. The below paragrah fails to acknowledge that of the States mentioned - Arizona has the most friendly mail in ballot laws, with most of the State regularly voting by post, while the others appear to have laws requiring counting only election day:
"Two key points stand out immediately from the matrix. First, significant irregularities appear to be ubiquitous across the six battleground states. Only Arizona is free of any apparent widespread ballot mishandling"
He is alleging fraud. He should be acknowledging exactly why it appears ballot mishandling occurred - that the pattern suggests the counting laws are a major contributing factor. But he doesn't do this, prejudicing his findings.
.....................
At this point, given the piss poor quality of the report, with missing information, missing qualifiers, inconsistent claims, and language designed to skew perspectives towards an obviously favoured predisposition (and all that within the first 6 pages), I stopped reading it.
......................
I am quite sure Trump has access to Judges and very experienced Lawyers who could have compiled this report to a much better standard. That he chose an economistto compile this report speaks volumes about the 'credibility' of this report. Or perhaps no ex Judge or Lawyer was prepared to put their name to it. Best would have been a foreign Ex Judge.
......................
On a final note. Given laws requiring Mail in Ballots only be counted on election day - I am now much less suprised that mishandling of Ballots occurred. Same with the suitcases of Ballots - they are now much less surprising.
