2 Comments

Wow. Came here after seeing Judge Roland reject you as an expert in defense of John Eastman. I was dubious about the grounds for her ruling, and willing to accept the argument that "data is data" as a basis for at least hearing your testimony, and discounting the need for actual "election data" expertise. Now, after reading this piece in which you defend the absurd analysis by Baris -- based on "exit polling" -- I realize that if Judge Roland read this as well, that would end any chance of accepting your expertise. There is no auditor who would ever accept an argument based on the grounds Baris offers, at bottom. Since you do accept it, it tells a reasonable trier of fact everything they need to know about your bona fides.

Expand full comment