Well, today they have had data experts talk through their analysis & findings in a much more detailed manner.
I am finally beginning to understand why they have yet shown the public the blatant proof they claim to have. 2/
I’m going to talk out loud for a sec. I have been listening to the Georgia hearing this morning. In recent weeks, I have felt a bit frustrated & even cynical at times about the repetitive claims that they have “massive proof of fraud” - but have yet to share it yet. 1/
Well, today they have had data experts talk through their analysis & findings in a much more detailed manner.
I am finally beginning to understand why they have yet shown the public the blatant proof they claim to have. 2/
As a result, the data analysts sound crazy, or as though their findings are baseless, or that they are exaggerating. 9/
More from Fraud
A thread on attempted election fraud in Canada: First, most breaches of election law here are related to financing, not illegal voting or ballot-box stuffing. And most are minor. That’s because our elxn finance laws are extremely tight and contribution/spending limits low. 1/
I covered two of the best-known cases in recent years: “robocalls” in 2011 election and the “in-and-out” affair of 2006. You probably heard a lot about the former and maybe nothing of the latter. Both were important for different reasons. 2/
In robocalls, the Conservative party’s voter-tracking database, CIMS, was used to make fraudulent automated calls to about 7,000 identified Liberal voters in Guelph, Ontario, directing them to the wrong polling location. The scheme didn’t work. The Liberals won the riding. 3/
Elections Canada caught on to the scheme on the day the calls were made, election day, and began investigating almost immediately. The long and complex investigation found the calls originated with someone working for the Conservative candidate in Guelph. 4/
After a trial, a lone campaign staffer was found guilty. He served jail time. The judge said it appeared to him others were likely involved but no one else was charged. Throughout, the CPC denied any knowledge of the scheme. 5/
Hey Canada, can we talk about how Conservatives are fundraising based on dangerous lies & how it needs to stop immediately? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/2LSHcJtsMf
— \U0001f142\U0001f130\U0001f13c\U0001f138 (@samifouad) January 8, 2021
I covered two of the best-known cases in recent years: “robocalls” in 2011 election and the “in-and-out” affair of 2006. You probably heard a lot about the former and maybe nothing of the latter. Both were important for different reasons. 2/
In robocalls, the Conservative party’s voter-tracking database, CIMS, was used to make fraudulent automated calls to about 7,000 identified Liberal voters in Guelph, Ontario, directing them to the wrong polling location. The scheme didn’t work. The Liberals won the riding. 3/
Elections Canada caught on to the scheme on the day the calls were made, election day, and began investigating almost immediately. The long and complex investigation found the calls originated with someone working for the Conservative candidate in Guelph. 4/
After a trial, a lone campaign staffer was found guilty. He served jail time. The judge said it appeared to him others were likely involved but no one else was charged. Throughout, the CPC denied any knowledge of the scheme. 5/
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
