Well, the cell phone data is good for proving where someone was, not what they were doing there.
Proving that somebody was within a few feet of where they were standing is pretty good proof they were at Trump’s rally for a precise amount of time, and where they traveled in that rally.
Being in certain areas (like the Capitol) during the rally was a crime, so a location is good enough to prove a crime occurred.
Proving that someone walked near a drop box a few times, when those drop boxes are deliberately placed on highly-trafficked areas, doesn’t prove a crime, because it wasn’t illegal to walk through public areas more than once. The location isn’t illegal.
So location data in this case doesn’t really prove a crime, because cell phone data can’t prove someone was dropping off fake votes. That would have to be corroborated by additional evidence for that specific individual.
The OFFICIAL GOVT VIDEO of the folks dropping in multiple ballots - at multiple drop box locations - on the same night - taken at the same time as the cell phone location data track shows the phone was there - IS the corroboration as to what happened.
Either that - or you were one of those Mules trying to shift blame.....
The threshold that True the Vote used for trips to these boxes by one person was TWENTY FIVE. They wanted it to be patently obvious that something shady was going on. So twenty five trips by one cell phone to same drop box.
I'm glad you're here to debate this. It'd be best to watch the movie, which won't be a waste of time. It'll address many questions and arguments. It will also prove AP's phony fact check is absurd. If AP were honest, they would be asking if these same mules normally traveled to these dropbox locations before or after the election week window.
Well, the AP isn’t the one making the claim, so I’d say the burden of providing that proof would be on the documentary. If they want their numbers to be credible, then they need to be the ones closing in these gaps in the data. It’s not up to me or the AP to validate their claims for them.
I too am interested in the range that this data was collected. I’ll see if I can track down a written report on which this documentary was based.
Not saying it's AP's responsibility to prove the case, but their own assertions should pass reasonable doubt as well. It's an absurd assertion that these mules just happened to be within meters of multiple dropboxes only during the week of an election -- but not on any other dates -- yet they had no involvement with the election.
'You could use cellular evidence to say this person was in that area, but to say they were at the ballot box, you’re stretching it a lot,' said Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. 'There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.'
Makes perfect sense!
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be? If many liberals continue to refuse evidence at any level of detail -- including video of the crime -- then one must conclude that many liberals believe stealing elections is impossible... Except when Republicans win like in 2016 when many liberals asserted cheating based on zero evidence.
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be?
Excellent question.
Considering the outcome that is demanded by Trump's supporters... very high.
Look, what standard of proof would you require to believe that Q was a LARP and you were tricked by a nobody?
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
IIRC they had CCTV data that showed them putting in multiple ballots along with the cellphone data.
one such mule who made 53 trips to 20 drop boxes for example so using the excuse they were just helping they granny post her ballot does not really fly, also they will have been paid by someone for this and probably been texted their instructions similar to the paid rioters.
If someone in law enforcement actually bothered to investigate it i don't think it would be long before the some of the 2000 mules would start to crack and roll on the others rather than go to jail.
So even circumstantial evidence would be quite powerful in that case.
Also with the phone tracking even if you use a burner phone whilst your doing something illegal if you have it with you when you buy a coffee or bring it home with it they will be able to find out who you are due to seeing the phone at various locations, so think about the amount of CCTV your seen on throughout the day and if your burner phone is seen at 10 locations where they can see you on CCTV they know its you.
Also Accurate to within a couple of feet from what i have read.
So to establish a crime, they'd need to tie an individual's phone number to the location. Then they'd need to have evidence of that individual dropping off multiple ballots. Then they'd need evidence that the individual was not allowed to drop off multiple ballots and/or that those specific ballots the individual dropped off were fake.
Then, if they can prove at least that level of crime, they have to connect that individual to a larger conspiracy, and that the individual was answering to someone specific (and not just a movement or philosophy). And then we have to connect that someone specific to an organization, and prove that handler was operating on behalf of that organization.
Then we have to show that the organization directed that individual to commit that crime, and connect it to an election fraud conspiracy.
We have to do all of this with hard evidence. And then we have to do it for another individual. And another individual. And another individual.
To date, the evidence I've seen of election fraud (AZ audit, Lindell, etc) has operated like this:
"Imagine if a Democratic operative was caught on camera going from Democratic offices to the drop boxes multiple times to drop off fake votes for Biden as part of a national conspiracy to steal the election. That would be pretty damning if we had evidence of that, right?
Well, we do have evidence that a bunch of people were near the Democratic offices and the dropboxes multiple times. And we have a video of some of those people dropping off multiple ballots. Some of them were doing suspicious stuff like wearing gloves.
We're going to assume they're fake ballots for Biden. We're going to assume they're Democratic operatives. We're going to assume they're doing this as part of a conspiracy. And based on those assumptions, this is REALLY damning evidence that the election was stolen."
If you take any random sample of thousands of people, start pulling targeted behaviors from individuals in this group, and then assume all these behaviors MUST be related to a single malicious motivation just because you drew lines between the behaviors, then yes, you can find evidence of whatever you want, I promise.
This is a basic correlation/causation error.
Like I said, I can't speak to the specifics of a video I haven't watched yet. But all of the big evidence releases so far have shown lot of data points I'm supposed to assume have a connection based on a correlation.
IF there is a connection between these data points, then yes, that would be concerning. But that's the evidence I'm looking for, and the evidence a court would be looking for. I won't assume a narrative just because a bunch of uncontextualized data points correlate in an interesting way.
Well, the cell phone data is good for proving where someone was, not what they were doing there.
Proving that somebody was within a few feet of where they were standing is pretty good proof they were at Trump’s rally for a precise amount of time, and where they traveled in that rally.
Being in certain areas (like the Capitol) during the rally was a crime, so a location is good enough to prove a crime occurred.
Proving that someone walked near a drop box a few times, when those drop boxes are deliberately placed on highly-trafficked areas, doesn’t prove a crime, because it wasn’t illegal to walk through public areas more than once. The location isn’t illegal.
So location data in this case doesn’t really prove a crime, because cell phone data can’t prove someone was dropping off fake votes. That would have to be corroborated by additional evidence for that specific individual.
Watch the movie, THEN comment.
The OFFICIAL GOVT VIDEO of the folks dropping in multiple ballots - at multiple drop box locations - on the same night - taken at the same time as the cell phone location data track shows the phone was there - IS the corroboration as to what happened.
Either that - or you were one of those Mules trying to shift blame.....
The threshold that True the Vote used for trips to these boxes by one person was TWENTY FIVE. They wanted it to be patently obvious that something shady was going on. So twenty five trips by one cell phone to same drop box.
Surveillance camera mean anything to you?
I'm glad you're here to debate this. It'd be best to watch the movie, which won't be a waste of time. It'll address many questions and arguments. It will also prove AP's phony fact check is absurd. If AP were honest, they would be asking if these same mules normally traveled to these dropbox locations before or after the election week window.
Well, the AP isn’t the one making the claim, so I’d say the burden of providing that proof would be on the documentary. If they want their numbers to be credible, then they need to be the ones closing in these gaps in the data. It’s not up to me or the AP to validate their claims for them.
I too am interested in the range that this data was collected. I’ll see if I can track down a written report on which this documentary was based.
Not saying it's AP's responsibility to prove the case, but their own assertions should pass reasonable doubt as well. It's an absurd assertion that these mules just happened to be within meters of multiple dropboxes only during the week of an election -- but not on any other dates -- yet they had no involvement with the election.
Makes perfect sense!
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be? If many liberals continue to refuse evidence at any level of detail -- including video of the crime -- then one must conclude that many liberals believe stealing elections is impossible... Except when Republicans win like in 2016 when many liberals asserted cheating based on zero evidence.
Excellent question.
Considering the outcome that is demanded by Trump's supporters... very high.
Look, what standard of proof would you require to believe that Q was a LARP and you were tricked by a nobody?
Also... very high. Right?
Considering the outcome?
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
IIRC they had CCTV data that showed them putting in multiple ballots along with the cellphone data.
one such mule who made 53 trips to 20 drop boxes for example so using the excuse they were just helping they granny post her ballot does not really fly, also they will have been paid by someone for this and probably been texted their instructions similar to the paid rioters. If someone in law enforcement actually bothered to investigate it i don't think it would be long before the some of the 2000 mules would start to crack and roll on the others rather than go to jail. So even circumstantial evidence would be quite powerful in that case.
Also with the phone tracking even if you use a burner phone whilst your doing something illegal if you have it with you when you buy a coffee or bring it home with it they will be able to find out who you are due to seeing the phone at various locations, so think about the amount of CCTV your seen on throughout the day and if your burner phone is seen at 10 locations where they can see you on CCTV they know its you. Also Accurate to within a couple of feet from what i have read.
So to establish a crime, they'd need to tie an individual's phone number to the location. Then they'd need to have evidence of that individual dropping off multiple ballots. Then they'd need evidence that the individual was not allowed to drop off multiple ballots and/or that those specific ballots the individual dropped off were fake.
Then, if they can prove at least that level of crime, they have to connect that individual to a larger conspiracy, and that the individual was answering to someone specific (and not just a movement or philosophy). And then we have to connect that someone specific to an organization, and prove that handler was operating on behalf of that organization.
Then we have to show that the organization directed that individual to commit that crime, and connect it to an election fraud conspiracy.
We have to do all of this with hard evidence. And then we have to do it for another individual. And another individual. And another individual.
To date, the evidence I've seen of election fraud (AZ audit, Lindell, etc) has operated like this:
"Imagine if a Democratic operative was caught on camera going from Democratic offices to the drop boxes multiple times to drop off fake votes for Biden as part of a national conspiracy to steal the election. That would be pretty damning if we had evidence of that, right?
Well, we do have evidence that a bunch of people were near the Democratic offices and the dropboxes multiple times. And we have a video of some of those people dropping off multiple ballots. Some of them were doing suspicious stuff like wearing gloves.
We're going to assume they're fake ballots for Biden. We're going to assume they're Democratic operatives. We're going to assume they're doing this as part of a conspiracy. And based on those assumptions, this is REALLY damning evidence that the election was stolen."
If you take any random sample of thousands of people, start pulling targeted behaviors from individuals in this group, and then assume all these behaviors MUST be related to a single malicious motivation just because you drew lines between the behaviors, then yes, you can find evidence of whatever you want, I promise.
This is a basic correlation/causation error.
Like I said, I can't speak to the specifics of a video I haven't watched yet. But all of the big evidence releases so far have shown lot of data points I'm supposed to assume have a connection based on a correlation.
IF there is a connection between these data points, then yes, that would be concerning. But that's the evidence I'm looking for, and the evidence a court would be looking for. I won't assume a narrative just because a bunch of uncontextualized data points correlate in an interesting way.
That's what the CCTV is for!
Not forgetting the way these mules got paid was by taking a photo at the drop boxes, and then getting paid per ballot.
Do you think that metadata is not available as well lol.
4,000,000 minutes of video showing them putting multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes -- and only in areas that turned from DJT to FJB.
Must suck to be fag like you.
I see what you did there.
I’ll look forward to seeing this RICO case, then.