The first part of this statement is false. The second part is true and should remain true (voting should be anonymous).
Sure you could but how many would return to a not for profit get out the vote location to get paid? There's enough data her for anyone to have a valid concern with drop boxes and the manner in which the ballots are processed.
Thousands of suspected visits were identified; the 2000 'mules' were identified only AFTER they were cross referenced against the local video surveillance.
My bad I agree as the ballot should be for someone on the voter roles. Once the ballot is separated from the envelope you have no idea who voted for who.
A question I have is why did D'Souza only look at the data for five states? If you really want to prove fraud, then the "mule" pattern should only appear in states where fraud occurred. But if the mule pattern occurs in just about all 50 states, then all D'Souza has proven is there are people in every state that visit within about 50' of where multiple election drop boxes appear. Which proves nothing.
Yes, it's very true. If the same patterns can be found in a state like Utah, where a fraudster wouldn't waste their time, or California, where the results were already expected to be a blow out, then it debunks the entire film and proves the observations are not unusual.
$$$$ and time jump front n center. It appears to havr been a very spendy, tedious, time consuming labor intensive endeavor. Naturally they targetted best bang for buck ROI states.
An in some states signature verification processes were relaxed. Even it his case signatures change over the years no one is doing a handwriting analysis to ensure the signature is valid. This is subjective even by automated standards. Personally I see enough irregularity to warrant changes and controls that ensure voter integrity. Ballot harvesting is an issue as well. Don't get me wrong I agree anyone that is eligible to vote should not be denied and neither should reasonable restrictions and reforms to ensure voter integrity.
That's a horrible excuse. "We did a half-ass job of providing evidence because we didn't have enough money and time to do it right?" See how far that gets you with anyone outside of extreme partisans who just want to believe. But you are right, if he had done a complete job, and debunked his own film, he'd wouldn't be able to make any money off the suckers.
How many people (hundreds, if not thousands) - lawyers, judges, politicians, etc. scoured data, examined voter rolls, machines, looked into every conceivable angle for months and months, to uncover . . . . . nothing? But now it's the geospaceforcelaser data that holds the secret?
If you want your analysis to be taken seriously, don't leave gaping holes. They could've picked 5 states Trump won and looked for the same patterns. Maybe they did? Who knows. But any experiment without a control is useless.
Past evidence has shown that real voters get disenfranchised by signature checkers being overly picky, though, too. And mail in voter fraud is almost always a relative or signing for spouse, and even those are sometimes caught, although they obviously make up very limited cases. I just seems highly unlikely to me that 400,000 fraudulent ballots supposedly filled out by strangers are going to get by the system.
Private money. They're not the government, and didnt have multi billionaire backing. Im thoroughly impressed with the effort that appears to have gone into this.
Seems very convenient they couldn't find the funding to truly back up their claims that there weren't mules in Trump voting states. Or maybe, they knew the mule pattern was quite common throughout the country? Which would blow a giant hole in the argument, and stop a few rubes from paying $30. Not all, as some are too far gone.
He looked at that data because these states were the most contentious. If I understood correctly an analysis of other states is soon to follow. Personally I'd like to see it for every state and compare state laws that may have made a difference. The other issue is the data collected is on a local level, Cell phone data wasn't collected for the entire US and sorted out accordingly. To be honest it isn't feasible at this time. Another potential use of the data would be find out when reporting on certain areas is if the same phone(s) turn up in another state or other precincts. Guven enough evidence of such information could indicate an agency of organized corruption. When we worry about election interference Russia, China or any other country for that matter could have a field day. At a minimum what this does show is areas of concern and this approach can be used for an analysis of all elections. Will such analysis overturn elections? Never. It takes too long to acquire and report on the data. Will it help in developing laws to the betterment of voter integrity? Absolutely.
I don't disagree with that assessment which is why such processes should be used as a last resort under specific circumstances. The ballots are not fraudlent so lets be clear on that point. The ballots are legitimate in accordance with voter roles. What is at question is whether the ballot was filled out by the intended individual.
