As much as you might want the Times to accurately report, they're on the side of the narrative that promotes glitches, hand waving and "nothing to see here". I'm guessing they've seen your analysis (otherwise, why is Bexar county voter rolls even on their radar?) and they're trying to shape the narrative.
I am aware. I didn't write this article for the Times, but the FBI. According to the Times, it was the FBI that suggested the clerk error/glitch explanation. I don't think they were looking very carefully to accept that. Assuming they did accept it. Given the Times atrocious record, it's hard to know for sure. Writing the explanation here puts it on the record, as my reasons why I think the glitch argument not only fails, but is destroyed.
The FBLie suggested the clerk error/glitch - wow. The FBI maestro who chose that disposition is either lazy, stupid, incompetent and or complicit in playing out a Bill Barr role and refusing to do their job. Just can't see anything out of order here, and no one else can either, so move along.
So blatant about it along with the Times. Kafkaesque.
I saved your post as a document. Beautiful exposition.
I love your illustration - breaking all the same old-same old norms and barefoot in the lab. Omigosh.
Historically, the NY Times has served as the conduit for the FBI to push its favored narrative. Nothing’s changed.
“North Carolina-based U.S. Attorney Dan Bishop is tasked with investigating election-related inquiries across the country and reviewing voter roll data collected by the Justice Department from various states..”
The News&Observer
Bishop met with FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Andrew Bailey about the Bexar case. Bailey took over after Dan Bongino resigned.
“The agent who conducted the briefing was insistent that despite the anomalies in Bexar County’s data, they appeared to have been caused by a clerical error, not by fraud.
But Mr. Bishop left the meeting skeptical of that assessment.”
The owner of KNOWiNK and purchaser of Dominion Voting Systems—renamed Liberty Vote—is former St. Louis Republican Party elections director Scott Leiendecker.
Before his appointment to Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew Bailey was the Attorney General of Missouri. Same State same Party, whatever that may mean?
Why am I getting the feeling the fish turned elephant has deeper meaning? This story convinces me more than ever, that whoever’s been running this election game in cyberspace is homegrown.
The Times Bexar story has kicked the hornets nest of familiar election gaslighters. David Becker who once led a symposium of mostly Dem SOS’s and some notable Republicans from Georgia and Arizona, weighed in on the Times story.
“They are being pushed by the president to find a crime that never happened, and there are a dwindling number of people left willing to execute the charade,” Mr. Becker said. “This is part of an ongoing trend where even this administration with its loyal foot soldiers can’t seem to find any evidence of a crime that wasn’t committed.”
I wonder how they might explain the correlation (repeated) for the temporal component where knowing the number of voters in a day, and looking for empty spots in the database for sufficient multiples to be placed is seen as a glitch. And then to have what appears to be another duplicate instance that mirrors a similar pattern of duplicates in Tooele.
I'll look forward to seeing the info on the lack of fraud, given what has been captured on video, the near-simultaneous stoppage of counting, the near (okay) vertical inputs of votes for the same presidential candidate in swing states. Wasn't there the negative counting too, seen on live TV? Fractional voting dump seen in CA? Same patterns of vote uploads that are statistically impossible?
When asking Google’s ai about voter data bases being secured from hidden algorithms, it’s answer deferred to the Center for Election Innovation and Research—CEIR.
Run by partisan David Becker, The Center for Election Innovation & Research, CEIR, received 69.5 million dollars from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for the 2020 election.
Has CEIR found any hidden algorithms on state voter registration databases?
This answer is typical of the claptrap coming from Becker’s CEIR:
“The Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) has surveyed states about VRDB (Voter Registration Database Security) every two years since 2018. These surveys have demonstrated widespread best practices in respondent states. This report shows that respondent states once again had strong security practices in place for the 2024 elections.”
I've long ago found that asking AI about anything remotely having a possibility of partisanship, it will swing Democrat/liberal. And it will show you the liberal sites it uses as sources of truth.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Ask about the 2020 census mistakes that led to Democrat states gains and conservative state losses, and it might ignore you, or even spin it away, despite admissions by the census bureau that they made 'mistakes'.
If it's not obvious, I don't have much trust in government (without oversight and accountability), and in AI's. I've had plenty of bad results or omissions. One time, it even tried to slip in code to delete my data when using it to assist in coding.
1) The woman with hair dyed and bleached blond is blond even though she is a brunette.
2) The man with a diploma hanging on the wall with his name and the following “Massachusetts Institute of Technology upon the recommendation of the faculty hereby confers on this man the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in recognition of scientific attainments and the ability to carry on original research as demonstrated by a thesis in the field of (name) given this day under the Seal of the Institute at Cambridge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” is a doctor of philosophy even though the document is a counterfeit.
3) A voter roll with "glitches" is still a voter roll.
Average intelligence person's "common sense":
1) Dying your brunette hair blond does not make you genetically a blond. You have to keep bleaching and dying it to have blond hair.
2) The man with the counterfeit MIT diploma is a con artist.
3) A list of names attached to government generated ID numbers with fake people on it shouldn't be used for anything.
Given their record over the last decade, there is nothing particularly unusual in the NYT deliberately misreporting a story about political chicanery. What is happening now however, is the brazen nature of their intentional lying. The editors apparently no longer care that the "reporting" they issue is no more truthful than the sort of silly propaganda distributed by advocacy groups on college campuses. The Times long ago stopped trying to be a reliable source of news. They are focused on preaching to the already converted and neither they, nor their already convinced subscriber base care if anyone else notices.
Imagine that a random glitch accidentally solved a system of diophantine equations, perfectly distributed fractional identifiers across 4,110 rows, balanced them with uniform spacing
to seven decimal places, applied heuristic address-increment logic, and then politely cleaned up after itself.
Let's be clear, the Times is not being an honest reporter. They are creating propaganda to cover for election fraud. And they know it. They just need something that sounds plausible to prevent any low-information spectators giving any mental traction to the idea that fraud occurred. For those that don't understand exactly how computers operate, a "glitch" sounds believable. And that's doubly true when you WANT to believe, which the Times readership definitely does.
I have naïve questions. Who in the election process might have the skills and access to launch or prevent that type of fraud?
Would an audit for that type of fraud require capturing original CSV files between poll closing and central count, and then examining them for fraudulent fractional State IDs? Who has authority to capture and audit those files, and what skillset and resources are required to conduct such an audit?
You can't audit "the process." We are told the ballots do not have a person's "voter ID #" on them. The electronic signature pads are a mess. That means the paper ballots do not tie to the poll books. Our ballots were suppose to be sequentially numbered like checks. That serves as an auditable control. Because they love the "voting convenience centers" they stopped numbering the ballots against the law, For Years. In other words, they stopped ordering ballots like you would checks. Tabulators are printers and scanning machines. Our tabulators require ink cartridges. Lots of ink for some reason (???). Ink at the poll book stations (where the ballot is generated) and ink at the tabulators (why??? oh! for all those people who are handicapped and can't physically fill out a ballot). Not so much ink from us, the people, filling in ballot ovals. I am confident all those bond issues I didn't vote on last election were helpfully filled out for me by the tabulator. I did use blue ink.
What Dr. Daugherity and Dr. Paquette are analyzing is the "check-in" file from the poll books. Those check-in files determine what a person's ballot looks like because there are so many districts that slice and dice up a geographic area and, add to that, a person's party affiliation during a primary election. They are not tying that file to the number of paper ballots or the number of ballot designs printed for those checked-in people (does TX use paper? I believe they do.) Dr. Daugherity and Dr. Paquette aren't able to tell if the tabulator data matches the ballots. They are looking at the poll book data and the voter roll.
When you start looking at the way the elections are run, you discover there is really no system. It is more of a disjointed set of operations run by different vendors and yanked around by the states' Secretaries of State and their IT hermits. The county clerks slap together what they are given, the news stations televise percentages, and the state servers hum along. Sorry, it is That bad.
Before you spend anytime reading this, I am laughing at myself for reading your "CSV" as a Cast Vote Record (CVR). AhhHah! Comma Separated Value file. So, although what is stated below is based on my opinions and actual data after looking at this for 5 1/2 years, it completely misses the target of your question.
Giving the "check-in" file to a candidate is to help them make phone calls to the "other people" who have not voted yet, I believe. And, lastly, I know I am not an IT person. I would be more in the auditor column.
A cast vote record (CSV?) is supposedly birthed by a tabulator. They are looking at "check-ins", birthed by the poll books.
When, where, how, and who captured the check-in file is an excellent question. It is as good as my question: When does the "participation" with its A=Absentee; E=Early Voting and P=Election Day Voting get posted to the voter roll. A Robis (poll book) vendor and a Deputy County Clerk (who was running the operation) had no answer for me. But for some reason they watch the "Same Day Registration" records like a hawk.
Other good questions are:
How does candidate M.R. in 2020 receive 45.6% (2nd place) of the statewide vote for U.S. Senate (approx. 900K total votes cast for the 3 candidates running) and decides, instead of protesting the odd numbers, he just as soon run for Governor in 2022?
Then M.R. runs for Governor in 2022, and statewide with approximately 700K votes cast he come in 2nd with 45.6% (2nd place) of the votes. A terminal case of always the bridesmaid never the bride?
Or,
How does the entire state "post" 456,762 "Early Voters for the General Election of 2016 and proceed to "post" 456,493 for the General Election of 2020. Early voters are not Covid fearful I guess.
I believe "the starting gate" is they run the thing by %s.
P.S. They can't hand out CSV (Is that the Drug Store?) during an election because they are not counting yet. (Ooops!)
“When, where, how, and who captured the check-in file is an excellent question.”
I think this is what you are looking for…..?
In “How far does the Bexar anomaly extend,” it is explained under
‘How the File Was Obtained — and Why It Matters’
In “Bexar County revisited,”it is explained:
“The Texas law created an exposure window that had never existed anywhere else.”
“Texas Election Code Section 87.121,
amended in 2019, requires that early voting check-in rosters be posted publicly on the county website no later than 11 a.m. on the day following each day of voting. No other state mandates proactive, automatic, next-morning online publication of check-in records during an active early voting period.”
Candidate Weston Martinez downloaded it before it was eventually erased.
Not a cast vote record, not the pharmacy. LOL! I assume Andrew was referring to an Excel-type doc, as you correctly note, a Comma-separated Value file.
I'm observing my county's central count on May 26. If there's a CSV file I should request at some point, I'd sure like to know.
As much as you might want the Times to accurately report, they're on the side of the narrative that promotes glitches, hand waving and "nothing to see here". I'm guessing they've seen your analysis (otherwise, why is Bexar county voter rolls even on their radar?) and they're trying to shape the narrative.
I am aware. I didn't write this article for the Times, but the FBI. According to the Times, it was the FBI that suggested the clerk error/glitch explanation. I don't think they were looking very carefully to accept that. Assuming they did accept it. Given the Times atrocious record, it's hard to know for sure. Writing the explanation here puts it on the record, as my reasons why I think the glitch argument not only fails, but is destroyed.
The FBLie suggested the clerk error/glitch - wow. The FBI maestro who chose that disposition is either lazy, stupid, incompetent and or complicit in playing out a Bill Barr role and refusing to do their job. Just can't see anything out of order here, and no one else can either, so move along.
So blatant about it along with the Times. Kafkaesque.
I saved your post as a document. Beautiful exposition.
I love your illustration - breaking all the same old-same old norms and barefoot in the lab. Omigosh.
Historically, the NY Times has served as the conduit for the FBI to push its favored narrative. Nothing’s changed.
“North Carolina-based U.S. Attorney Dan Bishop is tasked with investigating election-related inquiries across the country and reviewing voter roll data collected by the Justice Department from various states..”
The News&Observer
Bishop met with FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy FBI Director Andrew Bailey about the Bexar case. Bailey took over after Dan Bongino resigned.
“The agent who conducted the briefing was insistent that despite the anomalies in Bexar County’s data, they appeared to have been caused by a clerical error, not by fraud.
But Mr. Bishop left the meeting skeptical of that assessment.”
electionlawblog.org
The owner of KNOWiNK and purchaser of Dominion Voting Systems—renamed Liberty Vote—is former St. Louis Republican Party elections director Scott Leiendecker.
Before his appointment to Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew Bailey was the Attorney General of Missouri. Same State same Party, whatever that may mean?
Why am I getting the feeling the fish turned elephant has deeper meaning? This story convinces me more than ever, that whoever’s been running this election game in cyberspace is homegrown.
The Times Bexar story has kicked the hornets nest of familiar election gaslighters. David Becker who once led a symposium of mostly Dem SOS’s and some notable Republicans from Georgia and Arizona, weighed in on the Times story.
“They are being pushed by the president to find a crime that never happened, and there are a dwindling number of people left willing to execute the charade,” Mr. Becker said. “This is part of an ongoing trend where even this administration with its loyal foot soldiers can’t seem to find any evidence of a crime that wasn’t committed.”
https://restoration-news.com/david-beckers-democracy-summit-was-a-sham
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/david-becker/
I wonder how they might explain the correlation (repeated) for the temporal component where knowing the number of voters in a day, and looking for empty spots in the database for sufficient multiples to be placed is seen as a glitch. And then to have what appears to be another duplicate instance that mirrors a similar pattern of duplicates in Tooele.
I'll look forward to seeing the info on the lack of fraud, given what has been captured on video, the near-simultaneous stoppage of counting, the near (okay) vertical inputs of votes for the same presidential candidate in swing states. Wasn't there the negative counting too, seen on live TV? Fractional voting dump seen in CA? Same patterns of vote uploads that are statistically impossible?
Thank you for the background and the links.
When asking Google’s ai about voter data bases being secured from hidden algorithms, it’s answer deferred to the Center for Election Innovation and Research—CEIR.
Run by partisan David Becker, The Center for Election Innovation & Research, CEIR, received 69.5 million dollars from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for the 2020 election.
Has CEIR found any hidden algorithms on state voter registration databases?
This answer is typical of the claptrap coming from Becker’s CEIR:
“The Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) has surveyed states about VRDB (Voter Registration Database Security) every two years since 2018. These surveys have demonstrated widespread best practices in respondent states. This report shows that respondent states once again had strong security practices in place for the 2024 elections.”
I've long ago found that asking AI about anything remotely having a possibility of partisanship, it will swing Democrat/liberal. And it will show you the liberal sites it uses as sources of truth.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Ask about the 2020 census mistakes that led to Democrat states gains and conservative state losses, and it might ignore you, or even spin it away, despite admissions by the census bureau that they made 'mistakes'.
If it's not obvious, I don't have much trust in government (without oversight and accountability), and in AI's. I've had plenty of bad results or omissions. One time, it even tried to slip in code to delete my data when using it to assist in coding.
FBI "glitches":
1) The woman with hair dyed and bleached blond is blond even though she is a brunette.
2) The man with a diploma hanging on the wall with his name and the following “Massachusetts Institute of Technology upon the recommendation of the faculty hereby confers on this man the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in recognition of scientific attainments and the ability to carry on original research as demonstrated by a thesis in the field of (name) given this day under the Seal of the Institute at Cambridge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” is a doctor of philosophy even though the document is a counterfeit.
3) A voter roll with "glitches" is still a voter roll.
Average intelligence person's "common sense":
1) Dying your brunette hair blond does not make you genetically a blond. You have to keep bleaching and dying it to have blond hair.
2) The man with the counterfeit MIT diploma is a con artist.
3) A list of names attached to government generated ID numbers with fake people on it shouldn't be used for anything.
Given their record over the last decade, there is nothing particularly unusual in the NYT deliberately misreporting a story about political chicanery. What is happening now however, is the brazen nature of their intentional lying. The editors apparently no longer care that the "reporting" they issue is no more truthful than the sort of silly propaganda distributed by advocacy groups on college campuses. The Times long ago stopped trying to be a reliable source of news. They are focused on preaching to the already converted and neither they, nor their already convinced subscriber base care if anyone else notices.
Imagine that a random glitch accidentally solved a system of diophantine equations, perfectly distributed fractional identifiers across 4,110 rows, balanced them with uniform spacing
to seven decimal places, applied heuristic address-increment logic, and then politely cleaned up after itself.
G overnment
L evel
I ncompetence
T hwarting
C ivic
H onesty
G aming
L egitimate
I nput
T hrough
C overt
H acking
G iving
L ies
I nstitutional
T inkering
C harts
H istoric &
I novative
N onsensical
G aslighting
They should all be fired for negligence and/or corruption...Getting them out of there because they make matters worse.
Let's be clear, the Times is not being an honest reporter. They are creating propaganda to cover for election fraud. And they know it. They just need something that sounds plausible to prevent any low-information spectators giving any mental traction to the idea that fraud occurred. For those that don't understand exactly how computers operate, a "glitch" sounds believable. And that's doubly true when you WANT to believe, which the Times readership definitely does.
How long will the Public continue to accept these absurd "oopsie-daisies"?
It's proven Malice, and the New York Times is a willful participant.
I have naïve questions. Who in the election process might have the skills and access to launch or prevent that type of fraud?
Would an audit for that type of fraud require capturing original CSV files between poll closing and central count, and then examining them for fraudulent fractional State IDs? Who has authority to capture and audit those files, and what skillset and resources are required to conduct such an audit?
You can't audit "the process." We are told the ballots do not have a person's "voter ID #" on them. The electronic signature pads are a mess. That means the paper ballots do not tie to the poll books. Our ballots were suppose to be sequentially numbered like checks. That serves as an auditable control. Because they love the "voting convenience centers" they stopped numbering the ballots against the law, For Years. In other words, they stopped ordering ballots like you would checks. Tabulators are printers and scanning machines. Our tabulators require ink cartridges. Lots of ink for some reason (???). Ink at the poll book stations (where the ballot is generated) and ink at the tabulators (why??? oh! for all those people who are handicapped and can't physically fill out a ballot). Not so much ink from us, the people, filling in ballot ovals. I am confident all those bond issues I didn't vote on last election were helpfully filled out for me by the tabulator. I did use blue ink.
What Dr. Daugherity and Dr. Paquette are analyzing is the "check-in" file from the poll books. Those check-in files determine what a person's ballot looks like because there are so many districts that slice and dice up a geographic area and, add to that, a person's party affiliation during a primary election. They are not tying that file to the number of paper ballots or the number of ballot designs printed for those checked-in people (does TX use paper? I believe they do.) Dr. Daugherity and Dr. Paquette aren't able to tell if the tabulator data matches the ballots. They are looking at the poll book data and the voter roll.
When you start looking at the way the elections are run, you discover there is really no system. It is more of a disjointed set of operations run by different vendors and yanked around by the states' Secretaries of State and their IT hermits. The county clerks slap together what they are given, the news stations televise percentages, and the state servers hum along. Sorry, it is That bad.
https://rumble.com/v4h66w3-official-let-my-people-go-full-length-documentary.html?e9s=src_v1_sa%2Csrc_v5_sa_o%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a
Granted, “the process” is an imprecise term, and the tangentials are interesting, multiple, and sticky. I'm still at the starting gate.
Was the essential piece of evidence for fraud a temporary CSV file listing fractional voter IDs?
If so, when, where, and how was that temporary file captured? Who captured it?
Before you spend anytime reading this, I am laughing at myself for reading your "CSV" as a Cast Vote Record (CVR). AhhHah! Comma Separated Value file. So, although what is stated below is based on my opinions and actual data after looking at this for 5 1/2 years, it completely misses the target of your question.
Giving the "check-in" file to a candidate is to help them make phone calls to the "other people" who have not voted yet, I believe. And, lastly, I know I am not an IT person. I would be more in the auditor column.
A cast vote record (CSV?) is supposedly birthed by a tabulator. They are looking at "check-ins", birthed by the poll books.
When, where, how, and who captured the check-in file is an excellent question. It is as good as my question: When does the "participation" with its A=Absentee; E=Early Voting and P=Election Day Voting get posted to the voter roll. A Robis (poll book) vendor and a Deputy County Clerk (who was running the operation) had no answer for me. But for some reason they watch the "Same Day Registration" records like a hawk.
Other good questions are:
How does candidate M.R. in 2020 receive 45.6% (2nd place) of the statewide vote for U.S. Senate (approx. 900K total votes cast for the 3 candidates running) and decides, instead of protesting the odd numbers, he just as soon run for Governor in 2022?
Then M.R. runs for Governor in 2022, and statewide with approximately 700K votes cast he come in 2nd with 45.6% (2nd place) of the votes. A terminal case of always the bridesmaid never the bride?
Or,
How does the entire state "post" 456,762 "Early Voters for the General Election of 2016 and proceed to "post" 456,493 for the General Election of 2020. Early voters are not Covid fearful I guess.
I believe "the starting gate" is they run the thing by %s.
P.S. They can't hand out CSV (Is that the Drug Store?) during an election because they are not counting yet. (Ooops!)
“When, where, how, and who captured the check-in file is an excellent question.”
I think this is what you are looking for…..?
In “How far does the Bexar anomaly extend,” it is explained under
‘How the File Was Obtained — and Why It Matters’
In “Bexar County revisited,”it is explained:
“The Texas law created an exposure window that had never existed anywhere else.”
“Texas Election Code Section 87.121,
amended in 2019, requires that early voting check-in rosters be posted publicly on the county website no later than 11 a.m. on the day following each day of voting. No other state mandates proactive, automatic, next-morning online publication of check-in records during an active early voting period.”
Candidate Weston Martinez downloaded it before it was eventually erased.
Thank you!
Not a cast vote record, not the pharmacy. LOL! I assume Andrew was referring to an Excel-type doc, as you correctly note, a Comma-separated Value file.
I'm observing my county's central count on May 26. If there's a CSV file I should request at some point, I'd sure like to know.
Correct it's Disinformation USA 😫