My prediction:
"We found a lot of ballots that seemed dubious—multiple name matches indicating that people might have voted twice, or that people voted from addresses after other records suggest they'd moved. But we're not 100% sure how many of those are actually illegal votes, or which way the illegal votes went. Also Maricopa County is bad at record keeping."
It ends up being fairly clear something's rotten in Denrmark, but not enough for any concrete action. Media continues treating the whole thing as a waste of time and money that turned up nothing conclusive. The folks who pushed for the audit claim vindication, but nothing actually happens.
Happy to be proven wrong, but that's my guess.
Stalin fought Hitler, and was still Stalin. Opposing someone bad doesn’t automatically make you good.
Well, not really. He’s a tech entrepreneur wirh a degree in electrical engineering. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, of course, but I don”t think he’d satisfy most people’s definition of an “expert” on medicine.
This is silly and not how the legal system works. If Trump were winning cases, he’d have countless ways to get the word out whether the media wanted to report it or not.
I don’t know why this is either surprising or a “bombshell.” They’ve said from the very beginning that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after the second shot.
I have a really out there theory, and it may be hard to follow, but hear me out: What if bunch of doctors and scientists told Trump the vaccine was safe and effective, and because he’s not a doctor, he trusted them?
Seriously, though, I don’t understand why all these Rube Goldberg stories are necessary. Is it so impossible to accept that he’s a fallible human being who has sometimes trusted people who turned out not to be trustworthy?
Are those the only two options? Certainly we have an obligation to protect people who put themselves at risk to help us. Even if you didn’t care about the morality of it, sending the signal that the United States abandons its allies to be tortured and killed would be incredibly damaging in the long run. But the obligation is to get them out of harm’s way. That might mean letting some of them come here, but there are a lot of possibilities between “take every single one” and “leave them all to rot.”
None of those really seem applicable here. 403 covers evidence that is in itself prejudicial or “needlessly cumulative” in the sense that the litigant is trying to swamp the court with documents. Rule 37 covers litigants who fail to participate in good faith at the discovery stage. Barring some weird corner case—though I can’t think of one—neither would permit the exclusion of otherwise material evidence just on the grounds that one of the parties made it public in advance of litigation. Rule 26(a) gives a party an opportunity to ask to delay compelled discovery; it doesn’t mean nobody can publish any information related to the case until the court says so.
If you release evidence publicly, a judge can rule it inadmissible if it has too much public attention.
That’s not the way anything works. There’s no rule that would prohibit you from introducing evidence your claims were true just because the information was already public. A judge might order a defendant (or plaintiff) to stop talking publicly about a case, but defense evidence would never be ruled inadmissible on the grounds it had been previously disclosed.
This guy is one of the top experts on packet capture analysis in the world. He wrote the software the other experts all use. The other guy mentioned in the article he links did work for Sidney Powell’s lawsuits & is part of Lindell’s team. https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1425618284632678405?s=21
The experts on site are all saying they were never provided with packet captures, and have now been told they won’t be getting them.
I wouldn’t hold my breath… https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/11/mike-lindells-lead-cyber-expert-says-they-cant-pro/
I mean, I don’t know how much “discovering” it took, or how “secretive” it was. You can download it on their website. Hell, you can buy the paperback for $15. They held a big public conference to announce it back in March. It wasn’t terribly well hidden. https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/publication/long-fuse-misinformation-and-2020-election
This David H. Berger?
https://twitter.com/cmc_marinecorps/status/1341421889525342209?lang=en
D. Lindell got the supposed pcaps from notorious con artist Dennis Montgomery, who put a bunch of garbage data into a hex editor in order to milk some cash out of a rich guy who doesn’t know tech & was prepared to believe whatever someone claiming to be a “cyber expert” told him.
“Why drop the bombshell on the first day?”
So all the cyber experts you’ve been inviting to see your evidence might have time to actually analyze the data by the time the thing wraps up? That was supposed to be the point of this whole thing, right? Get a bunch of recognized cybersecurity people together to say whether the evidence looks real so it’s hard for the media & courts to ignore? They can’t just glance at a bunch of hex code and say “oh yeah, definitely real”; they need time to study it.
It would be notable if it were what she says. If you read the actual document, it clearly isn’t.
These are guidelines published over a year ago for separating high risk (elderly, with serious medical conditions) people in existing refugee camps from other refugees to reduce the risk of transmission. It doesn’t say anything about “putting people in camps.” If they’d actually posted a document proposing that on the public CDC website a year ago, you’d think someone would have noticed before now.
Well… of course. That’s how separation of powers works. The executive branch gets to set rules for executive branch agencies, not for the legislative branch. Presidents have no power to set policy for Congress.
Because HIPAA only regulates how healthcare providers and a handful of other regulated entities can share your information. Basically it says your doctor & insurance company can’t share your medical records without your consent. It doesn’t prohibit anyone from ASKING for your medical information, or refusing to serve you if you don’t answer or won’t provide proof. Some state statutes do what folks wish HIPAA did, but HIPAA doesn’t.
There were fewer than 9000 cases of TB in the United States in 2019. That’s 0.0027% of the population, not 23%.
Judging by the user name, I was assuming it was a Ph.D. in “Materials Science,” which is sort of a hybrid of chemistry & engineering.
A masters in the U.S. typically takes 2 years, not 4, and you don’t need to complete a masters first to earn a Ph.D.—most people don’t. Lots of people finish their doctorates in their late 20s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/240152/age-distribution-of-us-doctorate-recipients/
How exactly do you check that? Ask for their Unvaccinated card from the un-pharmacy?