Narrative. Apologies for being unclear.
Give them a narrative that is easy to understand. It can be anything this day in age (Dims do this all the time). The reports that come out of AZ, the PA numbers, the Mich machines. I think we already have MORE than we need TBH.
We don't need to reform the Dim places. If the red states do this at a local level we can lock the Dems out of the White House and House with much more certainty.
Edit: demand they remove the machines and gerrymander the lights out. They want to do this to remain in power longer and with a bigger majority. You need to give them the reassurance, narrative, and "cover" to move ahead.
Ahh I see what you are saying, and I agree with you on the "present easy to digest info so that anyone can understand what is going on"..I believe that at times the professional computer people, and math people for SIdney and CO got too far into the tech weeds and they lost folks with too much tech jargon, and not enough real world plain speak.
Here is something that I dont know if I can agree on. I dont think we have enough evidence at this point on the machines and I will tell you why:
1. The Ramsland report on MI as much as I hate to say it, was full of typos, and some inaccuracies just on the MI report. He also made other errors in things he reported. Now those could have just been minor things, but even Dems caught those things. And lets be honest, if we are talking about scrapping hundreds of millions of dollars of tax dollar machines...we need almost irrefutable proof, or at least pretty clear proof.
One thing I can say is that when Ramsland claimed that the "error rate of the machines counting" was supposed to be at x % and the machines were far above that...he made a wholly inaccurate statement there. You know when they were stating there was a 68% of the time error rate w the machines etc.. I looked that stuff up, and there is no such election rule that he quoted w regards to what the error rate is allowed on the machines. (at least I didnt see one). What he brought up was in relation to campaign contributions or something like that, but those numbers he quoted didnt have anything to do with a machine counting accuracy rate. So this has be concerned about the accuracy of their Findings because it calls into question their credibility. Also, when he testified regarding counties that had more votes received then people..he was using data from the wrong state..so his data was not accurate. He was quoting numbers from MN, that were supposed to be from MI, and they didnt have more votes than registered people.. Yes that matters when it comes to their credibility.
Now believe me, I am all for seeing these machines be culpable, but even I saw the cracks in Ramslands report (as much as I hate to say it cause you know which team I am on here)..and yes even I OVERLOOKED these things, because of the cause.. I/We cant overlook these things now because they matter when it comes to presenting 100% truthful proof as to what involvement the machines played or could have played in the monkey business election fraud.
Now other data that Ramsland presented, may very well be 100% true, and may indeed show that the machines are 100% culpable, and able to be and were manipulated I just dont think how he presented things, makes it 100% clear that this is true...and it is because of the inaccuracies of some of his findings..This would go against his credibility as an expert witness and would call into question the results of the tests. Reason I am bringing this up is cause Dems, and even pubs would as well if it means holding onto power as well as not scrapping 100s of millions of dollars of machines they already paid for. So this HAS to be done right, and has to be beyond reproach. The affidavidts and testimony HAS to be more accurate and full of less errors than the information and statements that Ramsland presented. Even I am questioning Ramslands investigations a little bit based on this info.
This is why I think if we get techs to do some testing on the DOM and ES&S machines, get someone who is a DEM and someone who is a Pub to run those tests. Make sure they are certified or qualified enough to do them, if both parties are represented, we now have transparency and neither side can claim the other is trying to push a particular political narrative based on their own set of politics.
2. Honestly, I hate to even think or say this, and as much as I think COL Montgomery seemed like a very credible witness. We really need to find out if what he claims he has as far as proof of seeing the data was seen going overseas...we need to actually 100% verify that he has this information and it is 100% true and accurate, and provable.
The reason for this is two fold:
If they had this information.and it is 100% provable..then
A. This would/should be enough evidence that we/or anyone do not need to potentially invest in any $$ to hire any techs to evaluate any machines, or they can be used to investigate maybe ES&S machines instead of Dominion ones cause we would already have the evidence that Dominion machines are compromised.
B. If he has that data he says he has... then an even bigger question: Why didn't DT and Co Powell, Lin, use this information to enact his 2018 EO regarding foreign interference and not give the presidency to Biden or allow him to take office? I mean this is a simple question and the straightest line between two points is it not? If we have our election data being shown going to foreign servers, being manipulated, then being sent back to us...is that not a smoking gun enough to prove election fraud, and interference, as well as have changed the results of the election....giving DT the win? Of COURSE it would. So WHY wasn't it done?
Is Col Montgomery FOS...and did he not really have that data that he says he did? That shows our votes going to foreign servers? I mean this is easily explainable and put into the simplest terms for people to understand...yet we still have Biden sworn in?
See what I mean, something is not making sense here. If Col Montgom has this data, it is the smoking gun, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, aka Biden never gets sworn in cause the whole election would have gotten scrapped as fraudulent and he Never should have gotten sworn in. With this data, we dont need to even bring up the signatures, the counting stacks of ballots more than once, or anything else for that matter, those are just the cherries on top and just further proof of election fraud that should also be looked into...
So either DT ignored this evidence, or his team didn't have this easily provable evidence or something. Cause this would have been the only evidence needed, as well as more models of the Edison data showing the vote switches on the machines. Those should have been the main focus of the evidence provided instead of getting all bogged down on those hearings with all of those peoples nickle and diming and the overloading of little stuff evidence that was provided. To me they bogged down the legs and the people watching with too much piddly evidence instead of just focusing on the major BOMBS....Col. Mont evidence showing votes going overseas, and the Edison voter data showing vote switches and negative votes, and votes being counted as fractions. Maybe a little of that other evidence could have been shown relevant, but they seemed to have too much piddly evidence that just mucked up things IMHO..
Anyway, sorry for being long winded.