Nikolai Patrushev, aid to Putin, has accused the U.S. and the U.K. of intending
to sabotage underwater internet cables and planning to destabilize the maritime
energy trade. Citing U.S. officials, CNN reported in September that Russia was
developing a sabotage unit with submarines and drones to target underwater
infrastructure by order of the defense ministry’s Main Directorate for Deep- Sea
Research (GUGI). A Swedish investigation found evidence of sabotage on the
pipelines between Russia and Germany. Moscow had initially accused the U.S.
Probes by Sweden and Denmark were closed in February 2024 without identifying
those responsible, although a German investigation is ongoing. Media in Norway
have reported concerns at the presence in the last few weeks of the Russian
intelligence ship Yantar in international waters alongside its coast near
critical seabed infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines and cables for
internet and telecommunications.
I have read the letter before before, and debunked it to my satisfaction. The numbers in it about “bullet ballots,” as far as I can tell, are simply made up. You can think whatever you like. If you want to see my reasons and citations and links, search back through my history, or if you can’t find it but really want to see, let me know and I’ll see if I can find it.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then I think you’ve maybe misunderstood as it was unclear and there were questions about what he meant. The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page. This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR. There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page.
Hm… so I spent some time looking over it. It’s not immediately crazy, on the face of it, like the “Duty to Warn” letter. And the allegations in the second link are specific, and concerning enough that if they are true, that it sounds like something looking into in more detail.
I did dig through it, just kind of poking to see if anything seemed off, and some of it is pretty suspect. I compared numbers from these two links, just to see if it was internally consistent:
The first link says that the Connecticut Democratic drop-off was -8,612 (roughly -1%), and the Republican drop-off was 59,065 (a little under 10%). But on the second link, the numbers are clearly not that.
(Edit: Hm… actually, now looking again with the population of each county taken into account, maybe it is right. Let me look at a few more. I was just overall really skeptical because the first link broke it out by swing states having a much bigger difference, and then the first one listed a bunch of non-swing states and said all the states showed the exact same pattern… but maybe in terms of numbers, they actually do line up. I’ll look more.)
It’s possible I’m misunderstanding something. I don’t completely know what I’m looking at here. I’d like to be able to ask one of these people what’s up with that discrepancy, and see what the answer is. I’m still pretty skeptical, though, unless there is some specific answer for why the two sources seem to show different results for what I think is supposed to be the same thing.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then
This makes me more skeptical. How many votes came in, in each category, was available immediately. If your argument depends on looking at the number of votes for each candidate, and you didn’t present it until two months went by because of saying stuff wasn’t available, that sounds wrong to me.
This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR.
That means absolutely nothing. Putting out a press release is about like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. I’ve done it. It means nothing in terms of validation.
There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
Do you have a link to the case? Where did you get this information? Voter fraud, I can easily believe. What you’re talking about is election fraud, which is very different and would be the concerning thing.
Overall, I’m still pretty skeptical, to be honest.
Well the people publicly trying to figure out what he meant at the time were struggling. I stopped paying attention as he said he’d taken it to an independent place and they were trying to analyse it together. May have responded publicly in that time too. PR means they’ve done their analysis and are able to argue their case.
What case was opened by the state? I heard the SOS was doing four investigations, and closed one and referred it to the state just recently, and 0 details at all about that one, or the three that were still open. If the state actually opened a case, I am interested to know the details.
They’ve spent months analysing and confirming it which has led to this.
https://www.wcia.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/776992724/analysis-of-2024-election-results-in-clark-county-indicates-manipulation/
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
I have read the letter before before, and debunked it to my satisfaction. The numbers in it about “bullet ballots,” as far as I can tell, are simply made up. You can think whatever you like. If you want to see my reasons and citations and links, search back through my history, or if you can’t find it but really want to see, let me know and I’ll see if I can find it.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then I think you’ve maybe misunderstood as it was unclear and there were questions about what he meant. The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page. This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR. There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
Hm… so I spent some time looking over it. It’s not immediately crazy, on the face of it, like the “Duty to Warn” letter. And the allegations in the second link are specific, and concerning enough that if they are true, that it sounds like something looking into in more detail.
I did dig through it, just kind of poking to see if anything seemed off, and some of it is pretty suspect. I compared numbers from these two links, just to see if it was internally consistent:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ytDyPprQVqiQG4r0G5BZTpEwvDdKBvH4/edit?gid=1449319225#gid=1449319225
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
The first link says that the Connecticut Democratic drop-off was -8,612 (roughly -1%), and the Republican drop-off was 59,065 (a little under 10%). But on the second link, the numbers are clearly not that.(Edit: Hm… actually, now looking again with the population of each county taken into account, maybe it is right. Let me look at a few more. I was just overall really skeptical because the first link broke it out by swing states having a much bigger difference, and then the first one listed a bunch of non-swing states and said all the states showed the exact same pattern… but maybe in terms of numbers, they actually do line up. I’ll look more.)
It’s possible I’m misunderstanding something. I don’t completely know what I’m looking at here. I’d like to be able to ask one of these people what’s up with that discrepancy, and see what the answer is. I’m still pretty skeptical, though, unless there is some specific answer for why the two sources seem to show different results for what I think is supposed to be the same thing.
This makes me more skeptical. How many votes came in, in each category, was available immediately. If your argument depends on looking at the number of votes for each candidate, and you didn’t present it until two months went by because of saying stuff wasn’t available, that sounds wrong to me.
That means absolutely nothing. Putting out a press release is about like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. I’ve done it. It means nothing in terms of validation.
Do you have a link to the case? Where did you get this information? Voter fraud, I can easily believe. What you’re talking about is election fraud, which is very different and would be the concerning thing.
Overall, I’m still pretty skeptical, to be honest.
Well the people publicly trying to figure out what he meant at the time were struggling. I stopped paying attention as he said he’d taken it to an independent place and they were trying to analyse it together. May have responded publicly in that time too. PR means they’ve done their analysis and are able to argue their case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/pHJ1Ar9mao
What case was opened by the state? I heard the SOS was doing four investigations, and closed one and referred it to the state just recently, and 0 details at all about that one, or the three that were still open. If the state actually opened a case, I am interested to know the details.