This is a great analysis, John. Full Forensic Audits are a must. The vast majority of people still believe that a simple recount would flag any errors or fraud - far from it! This misconception is what commonly fuels - still to this day - the idea that there was no justification to review the 2020 election. However, to anyone paying attention, as your early reports and many others indicate, there was ample cause for concern with many states' vote outcomes after the 2020 election. To ignore such red flags would be, as you say, an abdication of Eastman's Legal and Fiduciary responsibility. The fact the judge did her best to limit your testimony by repeatedly siding with the prosecution, in attempts to undermine the veracity of your reports, is chilling.
Thank you for your good words. Although I'd love to see full forensic post-election audits, I believe that would be too much of a jump from where we are now (close to zero). My belief is that appropriate sample partial forensic post-election audits (e.g., just a voter audit) would be an enormous leap forward, and be very revealing.
Thank you for your clear, concise, and thorough explanation of the complicated process of post-election reviews, audits, etc. I respect and support Professor Eastman, so I’m cheering for you and your work here. John has a legal defense fund for those interested: https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman
I send your comments on election integrity to the supervisor of county elections, to the county Republican Party, and local political journalist to make them aware of credible concerns about local voter fraud potential. This should happen in every county in America.
Outstanding legal brief. In the USA, elections take place within the context and proscriptions of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We are a federal republic, not, in the final analysis, a democracy. The Founders eschewed mob rule as much or more than they abhorred tyrannical monarchy.
At the level of presidential elections, the Electoral College betokens this idea. The pivotal role of "swings states" has been, from the beginning, decisive in deciding election outcomes. A judge worthy of the position should unbraid prosecution lawyers who argue otherwise, as they are doing here.
As for the central issue in this case, John does a masterful job of distilling the overwhelming evidence of election fraud more than sufficient to reverse the "official" election result. This is foundational empirical evidence, over which many other layers exist, such as the media/government conspiracy to censure the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop and the media/government conspiracy to fawningly support Democrat candidates while viciously attacking/censoring/gaslighting their opponents (the Zuckerbucks initiative).
It is very clear as to why John Droz was not allowed to give expert testimony. It leads to the WRONG conclusion. NOT acceptable! Welcome people of the USA, to the Brave New World!
This is a great analysis, John. Full Forensic Audits are a must. The vast majority of people still believe that a simple recount would flag any errors or fraud - far from it! This misconception is what commonly fuels - still to this day - the idea that there was no justification to review the 2020 election. However, to anyone paying attention, as your early reports and many others indicate, there was ample cause for concern with many states' vote outcomes after the 2020 election. To ignore such red flags would be, as you say, an abdication of Eastman's Legal and Fiduciary responsibility. The fact the judge did her best to limit your testimony by repeatedly siding with the prosecution, in attempts to undermine the veracity of your reports, is chilling.
Thank you for your good words. Although I'd love to see full forensic post-election audits, I believe that would be too much of a jump from where we are now (close to zero). My belief is that appropriate sample partial forensic post-election audits (e.g., just a voter audit) would be an enormous leap forward, and be very revealing.
Thank you for your clear, concise, and thorough explanation of the complicated process of post-election reviews, audits, etc. I respect and support Professor Eastman, so I’m cheering for you and your work here. John has a legal defense fund for those interested: https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman
TY for your support. The whole matter is a bit complicated (probably unnecessarily so), so glad you felt that I was able to decipher it a bit.
these are exactly the kind of explanations we need, practical, factual and easily shared w/friends and family. big TQ
TY ML. Please pass on this Substack to open-minded associates...
I send your comments on election integrity to the supervisor of county elections, to the county Republican Party, and local political journalist to make them aware of credible concerns about local voter fraud potential. This should happen in every county in America.
Good idea.
Outstanding legal brief. In the USA, elections take place within the context and proscriptions of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We are a federal republic, not, in the final analysis, a democracy. The Founders eschewed mob rule as much or more than they abhorred tyrannical monarchy.
At the level of presidential elections, the Electoral College betokens this idea. The pivotal role of "swings states" has been, from the beginning, decisive in deciding election outcomes. A judge worthy of the position should unbraid prosecution lawyers who argue otherwise, as they are doing here.
As for the central issue in this case, John does a masterful job of distilling the overwhelming evidence of election fraud more than sufficient to reverse the "official" election result. This is foundational empirical evidence, over which many other layers exist, such as the media/government conspiracy to censure the truth about the Hunter Biden laptop and the media/government conspiracy to fawningly support Democrat candidates while viciously attacking/censoring/gaslighting their opponents (the Zuckerbucks initiative).
Thank you.
I believe you. Now how do we get these corrupt judges shamed into following your true facts and logic? Threaten them w dementia?
It is very clear as to why John Droz was not allowed to give expert testimony. It leads to the WRONG conclusion. NOT acceptable! Welcome people of the USA, to the Brave New World!