Either you don't understand, having read it, or you have not read the report. It appears you are making shit up as you go. I don't have any incentive to rebut this kind of gaslighting from a uber partisan who questions the partisanship of the analyst.
So all you got is speculation then? Get a judge to agree on it, not interested in analysis by biased parties who have been spreading conspiracies forever.
Let's take a look at the uber partisan author of the report... whose material has been laughed out of court multiple times already. Russell James Ramsland is a total clown.... let's take a look at his previous false assertions about voting in Michigan. His latest claims are just as absurd as his previous claims. In 10 Michigan precincts, voter turnout reached 100% and in 6 precincts it surpassed 100% https://www.politifact.com/factchec...vit-michigan-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-electi/ Affidavit in Michigan lawsuit seeking to overturn election makes wildly inaccurate claims about vote A lawsuit is asking a federal court in Michigan to force state leaders to disregard Michigan’s certified election results and award its 16 Electoral College votes to President Donald Trump. It includes an affidavit that makes wildly inaccurate claims about voter turnout in Michigan cities and townships. The affidavit comes from Russell James Ramsland Jr., a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate. Ramsland is the one who mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns in a separate flawed analysis of voter turnout. His latest analysis correctly names Michigan voting jurisdictions, but similarly arrives at inaccurate voter turnout rates. For instance, Ramsland claims that Detroit saw a turnout of 139.29%. The city’s official results show that turnout in the city was actually 50.88% of registered voters. When asked about the error in Ramsland’s affidavit, Gregory Rohl, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit in Michigan, said he and his team would investigate the data. "I’m always willing to learn and surely want the facts set forth to be accurate in any filing bearing my name," Rohl wrote in an email to PolitiFact Michigan. Ramsland’s analysis gained public attention when a witness shared its inaccurate findings during a state House Oversight Committee hearing in Lansing Wednesday. During the hearing, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, brought a number of witnesses to share allegations of election fraud and misconduct already discredited by election officials and in court. The witnesses included Col. Phil Waldron, who says he’s part of a team that looked into "election manipulation." He claimed that "publicly available information" from Michigan analyzed in an affidavit shows excessive voter turnout that indicates election fraud. But the numbers do not square with the statement of votes cast from Michigan counties. A chart included in Ramsland’s affidavit lists 21 Michigan cities and townships, five of which are alleged to have recorded a turnout above 90% in November’s election, while 10 purportedly saw turnout of exactly 100% and six surpassed 100%. It is difficult to imagine that a turnout rate above 100% — let alone 782% in the City of North Muskegon or 461%In Zeeland Charter Township — would have escaped election officials compiling the statement of votes cast. But beyond the implausible turnout rates Ramsland alleges, there are other glaring problems with the list. Shelby Township is named twice. So is Zeeland Charter Township, with two vastly different turnout rates: 90.59% and 460.51%. Ramsland lists "Fenton" without specifying Fenton City or Fenton Township. But the turnout Ramsland lists for Fenton does not match the turnout in either jurisdiction. The actual turnout statistics reveal the inaccuracy of Ramsland’s numbers. His figure for North Muskegon is off by a factor of 10: The actual number is 78.11%, not 781.91%. For Zeeland Charter Township, he inflated the turnout nearly sixfold. For Grout Township and the City of Muskegon, his number is more than triple the correct number. There is one location where the actual turnout matches the turnout Ramsland lists: Grand Island Township, a tiny municipality split between an island in Lake Superior and a stretch of the Upper Peninsula’s mainland. Turnout there was 96.77%, according to the official record, as 30 out of the township’s 31 registered voters cast a ballot in November’s election. The 215.21% turnout rate Ramsland listed for Grout Township initially matched the data in the county’s statement of votes cast, but that’s because there was an error in the report. Gladwin County Clerk Laura Brandon-Maveal explained that the election results certified by the county are accurate, but that the number of registered voters used to compute the turnout rate was incorrect. "We have to hand punch in the total number of registered voters and they put in the wrong number of registered voters," Brandon-Maveal said. The county released a corrected report Dec. 3. In a second affidavit Ramsland filed in the same lawsuit Dec. 3, he said that the information source for his first affidavit was data from the state’s open data portal and Secretary of State’s election results page "that no longer exists." The Secretary of State's office never shared township, city or precinct turnout data on its results page, according to Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for the office. This latest affidavit includes a new list of precincts in another attempt to demonstrate excessive turnout. It shows that "Spring Lake Township, Precinct 6 — B" had a turnout of 120%. Spring Lake Township’s clerk said that there’s no such precinct. Spring Lake Township Precinct 6 had a turnout of 66.74% in November’s election. The list also shows that one precinct in the City of South Haven had a 100% turnout rate. The city’s clerk said that there are only eight voters in that precinct, all of whom voted. Ramsland’s new list also showed 33 voting jurisdictions with turnout between 86.79% and 96.77%. An initial review indicated many of these turnout rates are accurate. Michigan had record turnout statewide. President-elect Joe Biden carried the state by more than 154,000 votes. Our ruling An affidavit filed in a lawsuit in Michigan seeking to overturn the election purports to show turnout rates in Michigan that indicate election fraud. The numbers do not match the official statement of votes cast in all but one jurisdiction, and many inflate the numbers significantly. The official data show that the number of voters who cast a ballot in November’s election did not exceed the number of registered voters in any of the jurisdictions named. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
The cheats got away with massive election fraud because too many traitorous, swamp creatures covering for each other and enabling the cheating to go unabated. When the US Supreme Court will not even intervene to restore law and order in the US, we have become nothing more than a communist banana republic where laws no longer matter.
By coincidence Barr resigned the same day Dr. Jerome Corsi came out strong for his immediate firing (today). One wonders if Durham is worth the faith that has been invested in him, or whether he has been quashed by the Barr this whole time. But yah, they need another special counsel just for the election fraud, while Trump stays put until the entire affair, both affairs, is/are adjudicated.
In my opinion, this is a prime reason for having an executive branch. This ought to be the most nimble, fastest responding branch when a threat to the national security arises over the horizon. Judges may stonewall, congressmen may dither. While they do that, the President has to respond with some kind of action. Trump has a chance to go down in history as the greatest President if he can arrest this crisis and by doing so, insure election integrity for decades to come.
They probably, wiped the election machines of the evidence by now. I think Rudy Giuliani and his team of lawyers made the boneheaded decision to support legislators holding hearings when they had lots of evidence at hand. What they should have done is elevate the matter to the US Supreme Court when the lower courts and appellate courts filled with activist, extreme liberal judges were just swatting the cases left and right without even asking for any evidence? So, they have lots of evidence which has not even been seen by the US Supreme Court? Dominion Voting System machines should have been impounded and locked up to preserve the evidence.
I didn't speculate on your machine voting scenario. I told you what my own experience is, in a state that is probably blue because it handles all votes like mail in votes. You didn't account for mail-in ballots with inherent problems with separating out signatures after not checking them. No speculation about that. I did not comment on the scenario you proposed. The report states that there was one result on Nov 3 and a wildly different result on Nov 5 where the results were "flipped" back to a more expected result. There were different counting scenarios on those dates that are not explained by the scenario you propose, a scenario you are probably speculating about, relative to what actually happened in a county in Michigan on Nov 3 versus 5.
Question: How do you prove massive election fraud such as running ballots multiple times in the tabulating machines? That is one of the easiest methods they used. Hard to prove that they counted the same ballots multiple times? In the security video, they saw that precisely, because there was a security video of it. How many other times where they did this in rooms without cameras? They pulled this stunt in the midterm elections in Detroit. The poll worker caught, claimed it was a honest mistake to have run the same ballots 3 times thru the tabulating machines?