Quote:
Originally Posted by james112
If you think it's over. Think again.
The NY Times said of him:
He's also worked with corporate financial giants like Deutsche Bank.
In his affidavit filed with Powell's law suit:
It's one thing for Powell to put her reputation on the line. It's another for this expert in cyber crime to do so. It would ruin his career.
Affidavits are legal testimony. It's the same as raising your hand to tell the whole truth under oath in court. It's just in written form.
|
Because we don't believe someone would ruin his career, we're going to give the election to Trump?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball
exactly how did he come to that conclusion when he had no access to the machines or the meta-data?
no, it's not. testimony in court is then subject to cross examination.
|
This ^^^. Expert witness testimony in court cases involves an examination
of the evidence. A personal conclusion - and this is what that is - based on his guesstimates of machine and software potential is not evidence that fraud happened.
What the expert would need is access to both the machines specifically connected to the fraud and to the meta-data. For that court orders would be needed. And the FBI involved.
No one disputes that it is crucial to monitor for possible cyberattacks and to ensure the integrity of the election. That there is a potential for fraud. But you can't overturn an election on theoretical basis. Or decide to subtract some number of votes based on various projections from media screen shots.
Only if or error (or fraud) is found or if the courts disallow some procedure are the votes specifically connect to that error or fraud or procedure thenthrown out.
Some so-called expert saying give me "200,000" or whatever figure he comes up with does not cut it. No matter what his credentials.