Go to 49 minutes into the video I posted and listen for a few minutes, then maybe come back here and give the explanation.

As I have noted before, I don’t generally watch videos for this sort of thing. That is mostly because I absorb information at least ten times more quickly reading and because it is very easy for videos to make a misleading impression. Sorry. If you have a written summary of the facts with references I can have a look.

I only watched 2000 Mules per Rush’s request as a sort of favor given our past discussions.

   I got this from another board on the Arizona Audit

  Kinda hard to say there is no clear evidence of fraud.  Quite the contrary.

Please note I did not say there was no evidence of fraud. There is and has been for some time. What there is NOT is evidence that fraud had affected the outcome.

Remember that Maricopa County is quite large with a population of 4,496,588 people. Some of these problems are just people likely making errors, like the ghost votes using Sharpies.

This just isn't good evidence of something that is other than the sort of error rate you expect in any human process. Particularly if you spend a lot of effort digging, as they have.

I would suggest re-reading that list and thinking about what each item might mean. Some I don't completely understand, perhaps it is explained at the source, but printed on non-compliant paper? That doesn't seem like it necessarily indicates an intentional fraud. Same sort of considerations apply to a lot of those.

My recollection from a more detailed analysis was that if you assumed nearly all of the plausibly fraudulent votes, like those from dead people, were cast for Trump, it could change the outcome. But that assumption seems like a pretty far stretch.

https://rumble.com/v19u51g-understanding-the-arizona-audit-w-doug-logan-history-making-herculean-effor.html

I have of course watched the AZ audit progression a bit more closely since I live in AZ.

What has struck me the most about it is that despite the enormous effort of a complete forensic recount, there is no clear evidence of fraud which would affect the outcome. Lot's of evidence of problems though, but nothing to show it would have affected the outcome.

As I mentioned earlier, it is almost weak evidence that in fact there was not enough fraud to make a difference and that if you dig hard enough you will find evidence of problems at a low level in any election.

Of course I find it hard when thinking about datasets not to ponder how one might use them to prove a point. So here is one that occurs in about 10 minutes of thought on how to show more convincingly that there was a level of bias which could affect the election based on what is known about this dataset.

It would be very useful to show that the people transferring ballots from potential non-profits to ballot boxes are doing so in a party preferential manner. This would address a number of criticisms raised by the AP article. So here is what I think could be done using the existing dataset and publicly available information.

First gather a list of all the non-profits in the swing states. This is publicly online. Also gather the information about their total donations and number of employees. This might require purchase of access to a non-profits database, but that would be quite small compared to the millions already spent. Have someone blinded to any of the other analyses classify each non-profit as left or right leaning on some scale and based on publicly available information. This could perhaps be done 3 or 5 times and averaged. One could even hire 3 or 5 people of left and right political persuasions and average.

Then draw a geofence around the location of each non-profit and again measure the number of people that go inside these geofences and then go inside geofences around the ballot drop boxes within a certain timeframe. Next compute a measure of often this is occurring in a fixed timeframe for each non-profit. Normalize that measure by number of employees or total budget. One could even use a squared measure of the difference from the mean to emphasize outliers. Then compute the relationship of this measure with the score of left versus right leaning of the non-profit. And to show statistical significance, use a simple Monte-Carlo simulation of the same measure when the score of political leaning is randomly swapped.

This sort of numerical experiment could be easily performed using readily available statistical packages, such as R.

If there was a strong statistically significant correlation between the political leaning score and the measure of ballot harvesting, this would be strong evidence of a potentially important effect.

why do you keep going on and on and on about "widespread" fraud?

Do you think that "widespread" fraud is the only possible problem?

Sorry, perhaps I should have said "coordinated systematic fraud". I focus on that because as noted in my reply #102 above, D'Souza and colleagues claim that they
"Know for a fact that there was coordinated systematic fraud" (at ~46:34).

I have not seen the movie, but D'Souza has stated that the movie was created after a person who was party to the fraud came forward. Was that not part of the movie?

There are several examples that I would consider fairly good evidence for fraud. But that is hardly plausible proof of widespread coordinated fraud. What he showed was essentially anecdotal.

I will clarify one more thing. My comments pertain only to the question of whether fraud had a significant effect on the election, which is sort of implied generally by the use of a term like “stolen” as applied to the election.

I suspect that other legal measures, such as the use of large numbers of mail in ballots or ballot harvesting, might well have affected the outcome in such a tightly contested race.

There is far more evidence of fraud than evidence of a completely secure election.  Reasonable and fair people would investigate the allegations but such investigations are blocked through censorship, intimidation and literal terrorist threats and acts.

On the evidence I have to disagree. There is reasonable evidence of some level of fraud. There is really no good evidence it was biased one way or another.


Certainly the film 2000 Mules does NOT constitute such evidence.


Very few human processes are accurate to 1 part in 200 million. So if you dig around in such an election looking only on one side, yes, you will find fair evidence of some level of fraud on that side. And probably if you dig around on the other side with the same effort level, you will find similar fraud levels.


Where is the objective examination of the data which shows anything approaching a level of fraud that would affect the outcome?


If anything, the extensive investigations, for example in Maricopa County, which have yet to produce any compelling evidence of fraud at a level that would affect outcome, tend to argue no such thing occurred.