Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(104,398 posts)
7. From an archive:
Thu Jul 24, 2025, 03:00 PM
Jul 24
The crux of Mr. Zeidman’s evidence was that Mr. Lindell’s supposed proof of election interference did not include voting machines’ packet capture data, which refers to a unique signature on original data that is transferred from a specific place and time.

However, in a ruling published on Wednesday, a panel of federal appeals judges found that, because Mr. Lindell’s rules for the challenge were written broadly, the evidence Mr. Zeidman presented debunking Mr. Lindell’s claims was not unequivocal.

“From the four corners of the Challenge contract as defined by the Official Rules, there is no way to read ‘information related to the November 2020 election’ as meaning only information that is packet capture data,” the ruling said.

https://archive.ph/wZYfM

I don't know if that helps; I can't be bothered to find Lindell's idiotic game "rules".

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»MyPillow Founder Will Not...»Reply #7