On Erection 2020 and Guiliani
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-11-19 14:27 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 288 references Ignore this thread
On Erection 2020 and Guiliani
[Comments enabled]

I must say I'm materially more convinced that "there" is there than I was.

You can watch the entire presser here, and you likely should use that link since it's C-Span, which will be un-polluted.

Prior to that presser I had a 5% confidence level, +/-5, that there was enough in the myriad claims to actually sustain something that matters.

But before I get to my revision and why, I want to point out what "something that matters" means.

Specifically, enough EVs must swing to Trump to win or enough states must go into the "no-EV" bucket so Biden does not get 270 and the election goes to The House.

It does not matter, for example, if you were to prove Witmer personally stole the election in Michigan and gave it to Biden by her own hand, with proof she printed up 150,000 fake ballots and hand-delivered them in Wayne County or even that she personally altered vote totals.  That does not make Trump President although it likely would send her ugly ass to prison (where she belongs for a whole host of reasons related to Covid19.)

Nothing else makes any difference whatsoever in terms of who is President in late January.  It may well put people in prison, but it doesn't change the election outcome and that's what we're talking about here.  I note with some bemusement that the person who claims to be VP-elect (falsely; the EC has not yet voted and absent that or a concession nobody is anything-elect in this context) has not resigned her Senate seat.  If she was confident she'd be there in January she would have already done so.  What does that tell you about her level of confidence that the results will stand up?

But today my estimation has changed by the manifest weight of the evidence.  Specifically, it appears that there is a decent chance that indeed enough EVs were moved by shenanigans and that can be proved to change the outcome.

So my estimate now has gone from 5% from about 30-35%, +/-5%.  In other words somewhere between one chance in four and four in ten.

That's a big move.

With that said notice that I'm not over the 50% line even at the upper boundary of my confidence interval.  Why?  Because what we heard today is akin to an opening statement.  In fact Guiliani said exactly that, in plain English -- this is their opening statement that they would make to a court, basically.

There are plenty of opening statements made in courtrooms every day that do not carry the weight of the evidence through the rest of the trial and result in the outcome the attorney doing it (and his or her client) wants to see.

But this was clearly not a


by any stretch of the imagination.

In other words it had the elements that, if they hold up under both direct and cross examination, make a prima-facia case.

There was, speaking in specifics, reference to sworn affidavits with enough disclosed to tip the scales. That is, the content of the affidavits that was disclosed is sufficient, at the level of tampering alleged, to result in the change of outcome.

Now that does not mean that between the affiants and physical evidence all this will prove up through both direct and cross examination.  It may and it may not.  That remains to be seen.

But it cannot be argued that there isn't a case here to examine and the proper venue for that exposition is the adversarial process in a courtroom where people are placed under oath and physical evidence is subpoenaed and examined, not only for evidence of fact but evidence of tampering or deliberate erasure, which if discovered gets construed against the party caught doing it.

For today I reserve judgement, but my probability scale got tipped in a fairly serious way today.

It will be amusing to watch the media try to spin this, as I know they will.

And that too will not surprise, but it may result in more additions to my personal "**** you forevermore" list.

View with responses (opens new window)