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.
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.
Why are you here?
Mule.