RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/28/blitzkrieg-ballots/

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled against the Trump campaign. President Trump’s legal team had appealed a federal district court ruling in Pennsylvania on the narrow grounds that the Trump campaign should be permitted to amend its original complaint a second time.

Ordinarily, courts liberally permit parties to amend their complaints. And in that light the court here noted “[c]ourts should grant leave to amend ‘freely . . .  when justice so requires.’ [Citation omitted.] In civil rights cases, that means granting leave unless ‘amendment would be futile or inequitable.’”

The court held, however, that the proposed amendment by the campaign indeed would be futile and inequitable. Case closed. Game over.

It would be futile, the court noted—no less than eight times—because the Trump campaign did not allege fraud. The court pointed out that campaign counsel Rudy Giuliani in open court admitted that the campaign was not pleading fraud. 

The proposed second amended complaint did allege “a deliberate scheme of intentional and purposeful discrimination.” The court, however, said that this and the other allegations in the proposed second amended complaint were conclusory rather than supported by fact and that the campaign had already litigated many of these issues and lost.

The court further opined, citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Canvassing Observation Appeal of: city of Phila. Bd. Of Electors, that the Pennsylvania law requiring poll watchers and representatives, requires only that poll watchers be in the room, “not that they be there within any specific distance of the ballots.” The Trump campaign, the court added, had cited no case, and the court was unaware of any, suggesting that such a construction (watchers who cannot watch) of Pennsylvania law presented a question of due process.

Finally, the court said that allowing the Trump campaign to amend its complaint would be inequitable because the campaign had earlier insisted on the need to resolve the issues quickly. How could the campaign then claim that the additional time needed to amend was equitable? Time’s up. I’m late. I’m late for a very important date.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/28/reality-and-the-narrative/

Despite the blandishments of the narrative, which seek to seduce you into acquiescence with rumors of inevitability, we really do not know how this story, which seems so familiar, will end.

Oscar Wilde was such a card. Sitting for his viva voce examination in Greek, he was given a passage to translate from one of the Passion stories in the New Testament. He started in and was barreling along fluently. At some point, one of the examiners interrupted, noting that he was satisfied by Wilde’s performance and that he could stop. Wilde ignored him and kept at it. The examiner interrupted again. “Really, Mr. Wilde, you may stop now. It is clear that you know the Greek.” “Oh please let me continue,” Wilde is supposed to have responded. “I want to see how it ends.” 

Yuck, yuck, yuck. Who knows whether the story is true? I like to think it is. It’s not that I believe Wilde was ignorant of the plot of a Gospel story. He knew how it ended all right. But I admire the insouciance of his response. 

Many people think the world is in a position akin to Wilde’s with respect to the 2020 presidential election. We’re all assumed to know how it ended. Joe Biden won. Any demurral on that score is put down to feigned ignorance, attempted cleverness, or petulant perversity. 

After all, the Associated Press called the election for Joe Biden a couple of weeks ago. Other news agencies, from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to CNN, the New Woke Times, and the Washington Post were right there on cue, hailing him the winner. Time, the former news weekly, devoted its cover to Joe Biden, “46th President of the United States.” Twitter was on the case, adding little warning messages to tweets about the election it didn’t like, suspending the accounts of people whose opinions it disagreed with, throttling the ability of those who dissented to broadcast their dissent. Who knows what Google and Facebook are doing with their search results. Some secrets are too deep for the light of day. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/new_reports_about_election_manipulation_read_like_a_tom_clancy_novel.html

On Friday, a retired top Air Force intelligence analyst stated with certainty during an interview that special forces had secured a CIA-run facility in Germany that had computers showing election manipulation. If this report is real, we are witnessing the biggest coup attempt, sabotage, and treason in American history. No matter what, though, because this report is out there and comes from serious people, it deserves serious investigation.

I have no idea whether this raid happened. Its having taken place, however, is consistent with my ruminations about Trump’s peculiarly-timed shake-up at the Pentagon: Firing defense secretary Mark Esper and replace him with Christopher Miller, a special forces man; moving special forces into their own command, rather than having them function as subsets of other military branches; and firing potentially disloyal members of the civilian Defense Policy Board. These actions indicated that Trump was clearing the decks for something big.

In this post, I’ll sum up the most recent reports about events in Germany, although without taking any stand as to their veracity because I can’t take a stand. I don’t know enough.

For several days, rumors have swirled that there was a “military” raid in Germany, either against Scytl (the Spanish company that processes American voting data in a facility in Frankfurt, Germany) or against a CIA station that is also located in Germany. On Friday, those rumors coalesced into an affirmative report about the CIA station in Germany.

https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

“It is our belief that the extraordinarily anomalous nature of the studied vote updates here, combined with the staggering political implications, demands immediate and thorough investigation.”

Executive Summary

In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny. 

This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.

With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it’s not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it’s not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it is surprising to see vote updates which are both). 

The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential  with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.