You managed to have part of my attention. I have to admit this is quite the effort there. My only comment about the sworn affidavit will be that if you have both an election official and the observer from another party who says the opposite, then the strengh of the eye witness as an evidence is pretty weak. Let's move to the part that got me interested. The data analysis. I followed the link to the twitter guy, and from the twitter discussion to the actual dataset. Let me tell you one thing: when you have this much datacleansing to do (more than 80% of lines lacking either ballot mail time or ballot return time or both), you can pretty much conclude the dataset is not usable. This might be ground for requesting specifically the verification of a selection of the ballots identified as suspicious, but not enough to conclude to massive fraud. And i actually hope this is used to justify such request in court and there is an actual check of some of these outlier ballots. Will you accept the result of such an investigation? Also, incidentally and even if they took care to not bring forward that issue for that state, the page containing the dataset provides an explanation for impossible date of birth. Nice try.
Let it Rupp wrote:
For anyone interested in actually learning about the arguments of those claiming fraud, this blog post lays out brilliantly, in an extremely systematic fashion all the allegations (and there a lot of them) with the proper citations. For those who refuse to believe that voter fraud could have occurred, don't say nobody has provided any evidence.
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-us-presidential-election/