The Trump Indictment Thread

Harrison Floyd, of "Black Voices for (Individual-ONE)", continues to insist that the election was stolen, and his attorneys have submitted a mountain of election records subpoenas so that they can comb through the records in order to prove that their client did not commit a crime but was righting a wrong. The judge says, "I'll think about it."
 
California disbarment trial of John Eastman ended today (i.e. the testimony ended). I guess next there will be some written submissions as closing arguments, and then the judge makes a decision. I watched 90% of the testimony (it’s been going on for 2 ½ months), and I’d wager he’s cooked. No remorse. Even when experts in voting statistics show exactly why he’s wrong, he still chooses to believe his own ”experts” who are CPAs and electrical engineers and such who didn’t even understand what the data fields they were analyzing meant.
 
”experts” who are CPAs and electrical engineers and such who didn’t even understand what the data fields they were analyzing meant

TBF, that is sometimes the way to get useful analysis, to get the data studied by a blind person, who cannot impose their own bias on it when they cannot see how to impose their bias on it. Not that this was what was going on in this case. Results have to be vetted by neutral parties.
 
TBF, that is sometimes the way to get useful analysis, to get the data studied by a blind person, who cannot impose their own bias on it when they cannot see how to impose their bias on it. Not that this was what was going on in this case. Results have to be vetted by neutral parties.

The problem here is illustrated by some of the examples that came up in the case. In one state, Eastman’s experts are claiming 8000 people who registered to vote too young voted. They got that by running a query that did a date subtract on the wrong fields, because they didn’t understand how the fields are encoded. And it turns out that the mean age of those people was 42, and 99 percent of them had re-registered after they turned 18. Two of the people were 92 years old. If the “Experts” understood voting procedures they would have realized that just because you were first entered into the voting system when you were <18, that doesn’t mean you registered that same day. And even if you did, you can re-register years later, and subsequent votes are then legal.

Another example is that they found 140,000 votes to be illegal in Detroit because the votes were counted but not associated with any precinct number. The problem with that is it turns out that there is separate system, not involving precinct numbers, for absentee ballots - so the ”experts” had declared every absentee ballot to be illegal because they didn’t understand what the databases meant.

Another example is they declared a hundred thousand votes illegal in Pennsylvania because the “mail date” field and the “voted” date were the same. But they didn’t understand that people who vote overseas, the military, and anyone who shows up at the clerk’s office and does a same day registration and vote would have this happen. They declared “mail date means date it was postmarked” but had no evidence of that, and it wasn’t true.

Another example is the statistical “experts” who declared that votes must be rigged because Biden did better than Hillary, and significantly so in big democratic cities. They ignored the fact that if there is, say, a 5 percent shift across the board where Biden does better than Hillary, it would be a much bigger effect in big cities because more people vote there. (They looked at NUMBER of votes, not SHARE of votes). Worse, their premise was that any deviation from 2016 to 2020 vote share or quantity Is proof of fraud. They assumed that votes follow a gaussian distribution, but couldn’t explain why. When asked to name another statistical distribution, they couldn’t.

The point is, you need to understand the system you are evaluating otherwise your statistical analysis has no meaning.
 
The problem here is illustrated by some of the examples that came up in the case. In one state, Eastman’s experts are claiming 8000 people who registered to vote too young voted. They got that by running a query that did a date subtract on the wrong fields, because they didn’t understand how the fields are encoded. And it turns out that the mean age of those people was 42, and 99 percent of them had re-registered after they turned 18. Two of the people were 92 years old. If the “Experts” understood voting procedures they would have realized that just because you were first entered into the voting system when you were <18, that doesn’t mean you registered that same day. And even if you did, you can re-register years later, and subsequent votes are then legal.

Another example is that they found 140,000 votes to be illegal in Detroit because the votes were counted but not associated with any precinct number. The problem with that is it turns out that there is separate system, not involving precinct numbers, for absentee ballots - so the ”experts” had declared every absentee ballot to be illegal because they didn’t understand what the databases meant.

Another example is they declared a hundred thousand votes illegal in Pennsylvania because the “mail date” field and the “voted” date were the same. But they didn’t understand that people who vote overseas, the military, and anyone who shows up at the clerk’s office and does a same day registration and vote would have this happen. They declared “mail date means date it was postmarked” but had no evidence of that, and it wasn’t true.

Another example is the statistical “experts” who declared that votes must be rigged because Biden did better than Hillary, and significantly so in big democratic cities. They ignored the fact that if there is, say, a 5 percent shift across the board where Biden does better than Hillary, it would be a much bigger effect in big cities because more people vote there. (They looked at NUMBER of votes, not SHARE of votes). Worse, their premise was that any deviation from 2016 to 2020 vote share or quantity Is proof of fraud. They assumed that votes follow a gaussian distribution, but couldn’t explain why. When asked to name another statistical distribution, they couldn’t.

The point is, you need to understand the system you are evaluating otherwise your statistical analysis has no meaning.
Thank you for detailing why the analysis by Eastman's so-called experts was massively faulty. But shouldn't the fact that he was exhorting Pence to do something he clearly knew to be illegal (i.e., to block certification of the election) be sufficient grounds for disbarment? And that he demanded that Pence take this action in a fiery speech before a MAGA crowd on January 6 should only add to the evidence against him.
 
Harrison Floyd, of "Black Voices for (Individual-ONE)", continues to insist that the election was stolen, and his attorneys have submitted a mountain of election records subpoenas so that they can comb through the records in order to prove that their client did not commit a crime but was righting a wrong. The judge says, "I'll think about it."

If he so believed the election was stolen, then he wouldn’t have needed to try to coerce an elderly black community volunteer to admit to felonies she didn’t commit. He wouldn’t have needed to plot to coerce her into becoming part of a scheme. Mr. Floyd can believe he himself won the election for all I care, and even if he believes it with every fiber of his being, he’s still a criminal.

Just a hustler paying the price for trying to further himself at the expense of others. I’m not even sure smoking gun proof of widespread election fraud, even taking place in Fulton County, would negate any of the charges. At some point, logic and reason will dictate to a future jury “are we really going to let any shmuck in the future pull these stunts just because they personally feel the election was stolen?

Am I allowed to go find a random, elderly female Trump supporter and try to get her to admit she cast two ballots for Trump when she didn’t? Maybe stroll into the election office and get some data I have no right to access?

Just imagine if everyone got to break a law that conflicted with their gut feelings.

The point is, you need to understand the system you are evaluating otherwise your statistical analysis has no meaning.

Great breakdown.

The Trump cult also incorrectly assume all fraud would have helped Biden.

But, if you really want to know how sincere republicans are about this alleged 2020 voter fraud, the proof is in the pudding; how many have resigned their seats in protest because they were on the ballot with Trump, and they aren’t going to accept a win based on faulty ballots? I believe the number of election-denying republicans who have taken that step of conviction is ZERO.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for detailing why the analysis by Eastman's so-called experts was massively faulty. But shouldn't the fact that he was exhorting Pence to do something he clearly knew to be illegal (i.e., to block certification of the election) be sufficient grounds for disbarment? And that he demanded that Pence take this action in a fiery speech before a MAGA crowd on January 6 should only add to the evidence against him.

The bar court has preliminarily found him “culpable” for ethics breaches (on thursday). What remains is a final ruling and the punishment. Since he wasn’t Pence’s lawyer, him asking Pence to do stuff is probably not a grounds for disbarment. Nor would his speech to the MAGA crowd (though it did come up as an aggravating factor in the trial, because he said he gave no thought to how the crowd would react).

Him filing baseless lawsuits, alleging things he should have known to be false (because any lawyer would look into the claims made by experts and supposed percipient witnesses before filing suit), is probably what will get him disbarred.
 
The Trump cult also incorrectly assume all fraud would have helped Biden.

There was a striking moment this week when Eastman was being cross-examined. He was asked how the state legistlatures he wanted to decide the matter were supposed to know how to allocate the ”disputed” votes, and how they were supposed to do that in the 10 day long delay he wanted Pence to impose.

His answer was that the legislatures would just have to guess.

His entire argument was that if the supreme court in a state ruled that, for example, because of Covid, you didn’t have to send monitors to nursing homes to watch votes being collected, that was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in a state can’t overrule the legislature in a state.

So even though the governor of the state certified the electors, Pence should stop everything, go to the legislature, and say “you sure you’re okay with this?” Then the legislature, which just happens to be republican majority, is supposed to guess at how many votes are affected, and pick new electors accordingly.

Insane.
 
Wow 😮

IMG_2138.jpeg
 
It appears to be a game of chicken: Individual-ONE's lawyers are trying to faze the judge, in an effort to show bias and get the case thrown out on appeal. What is missed is that it is not a trial at this point. Malfeasance has already been established. Individual-ONE's business has already been found liable (it is a civil case, so "guilty" is not the ruling). This is a proceeding held to determine how much they are liable for and what corrective action is in order.

In short, the judge ruled against CFSG, so he is already "biased", in the sense that he regards the toddler as being a bad boy, so trying to portray him as biased is silly.
 
The grandstanding and showboating is fine, but he still didn't help himself. He didn't say anything on the stand he doesn't say in his remarks anywhere else, which is what angered the judge. "This is a great company and it keeps getting attacked" has nothing to do with whether you lied on your business records, which is what you're accused of, you dolt.
 
As what's-'er-name was walking into the courthouse in NY to testify about what a freakin' moron she is and whether she knows whose pants she is wearing, the crowd outside greeted her with shouts of "Crime family, crime family, crime family."
Though they’re technically correct, waiting outside a courthouse to shout at Ivanka is a weird way to spend your day.
 
In the spirit of the birther movement and “I’ve been hearing things" propaganda it needs to be put out there that a DNA test revealed Trump isn’t Ivanka’s dad. This should include right-wing undisputable level proof in the form of pictures of Trump and all his kids with “Which one these doesn’t belong?”.

Trump’s head would explode on so many levels. And then he’d start treating Ivanka even creepier than he already does.
 
Back
Top