[ttt0]

Surveying people was just one thing that he did. He also matched the voters with NCOA database, that could indicate that people from other states voted and things like that.

One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTDEIGVoWhI

As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing. So unfortunately, he will only give you the actual data if you're someone trustworthy, so a lawyer, politician, journalist or something like that. His research is included as evidence in some of the ongoing court cases.

From what I've seen a lot of people have said that he might just be a grifter. I personally don't care, since I never donate to anything like that, but if you're considered about this, he posted the expenses on twitter. I believe a lot of money went to the call centers.

And look, it very well might be, that it's literally nothing. But this type of research is realistically as best as you can possibly get. What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything. But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.

[nl]

> One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett

Yeah so here's the affidavit he has signed[1]. There's no evidence at all that he voted in AZ, only that his voter registration record was active, and his affidavit doesn't claim he voted or that he found that he voted, only that Braynard's organisation claims he did.

If you listen carefully to the interview, the story is the same there. When she asks what kind of vote it was he says "oh I don't know - I think it was an early vote or a provisional vote or something". He hasn't checked!

Braynard claims that he voted. But there is nothing verifying that at all that this is the case, and Braynard couldn't verify this independently. (I just checked - you need your Voter ID and/or SSN).

> As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing.

This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.

One of the reasons everyone is so annoyed about this is because of this shitty grifter wrecking democracy to make a few bucks for themselves.

> What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything.

This of course is complete nonsense. There have been vast numbers of state and federal investigations into every alleged piece of fraud. But there is nothing there, especially not on the scale claimed.

> But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.

It really wasn't. He was raising money by alleging fraud occurred and he was going to blow the lid on it all.

Carefully trying to work around their restrictions by pretending it was "just in case" - when the President of the United States is making these claims - is clearly bad faith.

[1] https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1...

[ttt0]

That's interesting, thanks for answer.

> This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.

Well, I saw with my own eyes that people were banned for posting the information like that, so that's why I believe it.

I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.

Looking on the bright side, I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.

[nl]

> people were banned for posting the information

No, him using that as an excuse is the BS. If he could actually prove anything - instead of it just being yet more allegations - would be explosive, and being "banned" (by who exactly) wouldn't matter.

> I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.

Of course, there are plenty of closed court methods of doing this.

> I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.

Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least.

Put it like this: is there anything that would convince you that these claims are all BS? I mean - Trump appointed judges keep throwing the claims out of court. - what more do you need?

[ttt0]

That's just my opinion, but here is what I think:

I already believe that at least 90-95% of those claims are BS, and no one had to convince me to believe anything. However, considering the fact how many people seriously consider Trump to be the next Hitler, there is no doubt in my mind that someone for sure did try to cheat is some way. Another question is whether there was enough of it to change the outcome and to that - I have no idea.

The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. This fact alone makes the election illegitimate, as far as I am considered. Poll observers should be there to ensure that there is no fraud in the first place, and without that it's really hard to figure out what happened. If the poll observers were allowed to do their job, I don't think I could complain about anything.

Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. But I guess it's possible that it's just propaganda from the Trump side, so I have no idea on this one either.

And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?

[nl]

> The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots.

Citation please.

The closest that occurred was that when Republicans tried to put more observers in place than was the agreed number (the number has to be equal between Democrat, Republican and Independent observers) they weren't allowed.

> Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits.

Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Guilliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been.

> Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet.

Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims.

Here's a typical judgement against the claims:

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

Note "unsupported by evidence"

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057...

> And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?

No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted?

[ttt0]

> No, that appears to be a voter registration record. Is there something on it you think indicates he voted?

    My Ballot Status
    10/20/2020
    Your ballot was signature verified and counted.

I'll try to respond to the rest tomorrow.

[ttt0]

Here is what I am basing the poll observers not being able to challenge the ballots claim on. From the day one, a lot of people from all over the place have been alleging the following thing. They weren't able to come any closer than at least 6ft, and if they tried to challenge a ballot, the poll workers would basically scream at them and call 911 or the security. The story is consistent among everyone who've been saying that and the video evidence supports that. The claim has been also repeated on various hearings. I wish I had time to go through all of the thousands of pages of court documents and point you to exact claims, but I unfortunately I have a work too, so if you're interested in that, you'd have to find it on your own. Giuliani said that they have it on sworn affidavits and I don't really have any reason to suspect that this is not the case. You can probably find the actual affidavits on the same court cases that Braynard is a part of.

Here is one of the videos of poll observers being forced to stay at the 20ft distance. Keep in mind that there are 3 or 4 rows of tables, 20ft is just from the first row.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTWqD5fZKo

Here is just one example of people alleging what I've described on the election night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOS0sLlR-sU

Here is the leaked audio from the Detroit poll worker training. Normally it could be dismissed as it has the "conspiracy theory" vibe to it and is hard to watch, but since the story is consistent with the claims above, I found it to be believable. I don't know why people do this kind of thing instead of just posting a full, unedited audio, but whatever. I believe there is also an interview with the dude behind the leak on a Youtube channel called "Rekieta Law", if you're interested, but I haven't personally listened to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzyLmtjy6sI

> Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Giuliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been.

That might be true, but the vast majority of the lawsuits had nothing to do with Giuliani.

> Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims.

Let me correct myself, my understanding is that the Trump team waited a long time to file the lawsuits with actual evidence. Their first lawsuits weren't even alleging any sort of fraud or irregularities, but to allow the poll observers within a 6ft distance when challenging the ballots and things like that. Can't speak to why were they waiting so long.

> Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least.

Going back to your previous comment, as far as it would be indeed very annoying, I don't think that it's a fair criticism, since we've all heard the Russia collusion allegations for the previous four years. I'm not saying that you specifically are guilty of this, but still, you can't criticize someone for doing that if you did the same thing.

Regarding the Nahshon Garrett affidavit, I searched for the `Your ballot was signature verified and counted` string on twitter, and it seems like it means that your vote was indeed counted, so it seems that what Braynard says might actually be true. Which brings me to the same question that you've initially asked me: is there anything that would convince you that some of these claims are true?

[ttt0]

Hold on a second, the affidavit you've linked shows a screenshot (exhibit 2) from a website that says that he voted in AZ. Am I missing something?

[th0ma5]

A lot!