Each signature expert got 100 ballots. "Statist "statistically significant" was the phrase lawyer Robert Barnes used when talking about the case. Republican and Democrat signature experts were each given 100 ballots to check I believe. Barnes has probably mentioned this case on his Twitter @Barnes_Law
Basically, on first glance, experts couldn't match signatures exactly. But Arizona law allows for more samples to be collected, and for people to be contacted if there are questions about ballots. On your mail-in ballot, you are required to give a phone number in case this happens. So, upon further review, all signatures were verified.
Yeah, that analysis sounds ridiculous. Also, you probably shouldn't get your facts from crackpot lawyers on Twitter.
"Crackpot" lawyer? From the website of Robert Barnes: "Barnes has achieved the highest acquittal rate in the history of criminal tax prosecutions in the country, the lowest sentencing rates, the highest appellate reversal rates, the highest jury acquittal rates, the highest jury felon acquittal rates, the highest jury misdemeanor acquittal rates that have ever been heard of in the criminal tax arena." Robert Barnes — Barnes Law
Well, if he says it on his website, it must be true! But it should be noted that if you look at his famous cases, he represented Wesley Snipes, who ended up in jail for 3 years, Ralph Nader in an unsuccessful attempt to gain access to Hawaii's ballot, 8 Covington High students in a defamation case that was dismissed, Alex Jones in a defamation case, which was found in summary judgment against him, Kyle Rittenhouse, where he was acquitted, Dustin Hice in his suit against Don Lemon, which was dismissed, and the woman from the Central Park birdwatching Karen incident, which was dismissed. So I count 4 complete losses, a partial loss, and 2 wins. His success rate doesn't seem that high, mostly due to poor case selection, as he seems to be attracted to crackpot clients. But again, if somebody tells you that 100 people is a "statistically significant" sample, you should just go ahead and ignore everything else they have to say on the issue, as that is nonsense of the highest order from a person who clearly never took or forgot everything they learned in a basic intro to stats class. There are real issues around selecting a sample size, involving the ability to make inferences and statistical power, but a sample size itself is not significant: the effects are significant (i.e., they are less likely than a chosen level of significant to have occurred by random chance).
Wesley Snipes was facing 16 years and $40 million in fines. NYT: "...most significant tax trial in 2 decades." Result: "Hired only three weeks before Snipes’ tax-evasion trial began, Wesley Snipes’ attorney Robert Barnes engineered a “stunning” legal defense leading to Wesley Snipes’ full acquittal on all tax evasion and tax fraud charges." Full acquittal as in 12-0 Most of the jurors thought Snipes was innocent of the misdemeanor charges (9-3). 3 jurors "later admitted" they lied to get on the jury. My recollection is it was an all-white jury from redneck Ocala. Big win for Barnes, not going to waste my time going through the rest of the cases.
Hmmm, so you are arguing that he was convicted by a jury in which 9 people voted to acquit? I don't think you have a good handle on this sort of thing if you think that is possible. And he was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.) The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.” Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
Eventually some of our friends here will acknowledge this and stop blindly following bad science. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact they do not want to accept they made a decision that was wrong. They cannot realize it might have been the right decision at the time for them. But can’t get past the reality it ended up being a wrong decision based on bad information pushed by a small few who led these agencies in a damaging way. Not sure it will ever be proven. But it is likely criminal what fauci and these people did. Just because they have MD or DO by their name does not mean they are good at what they do. All professions have people working in them that are not up to the job. What we saw from the cdc and fauci was done with intent based on what I have seen. A willful ignoring of science. Money will sadly protect these people though imo.
I have said from the beginning, I understand being aggressive when you don’t really know what you are dealing with. But as soon as information is given to help understand it, then you need to change what you are doing and follow the “science”, and I don’t mean “created” science based on personal views. Admit you need to change what you are now doing and explain why. People will have a lot less issue with that course then just making crap up and sticking to it. No wonder so many people no longer believe “science”.
Meanwhile... DeSantis Rages About ‘Little Elf’ Fauci: ‘Grab Him and Chuck Him Across the Potomac’ This is a winning line amongst Republicans. And, unfortunately, the people that enabled Trumpism in the first place will enable this sort of stuff as well, while the Trump fans cheer this as great and hilarious stuff.
