December 8, 2020 11:02 AM ET
In a new lawsuit filed today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block four battleground states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.
In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D.
Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University.
According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.
Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).
Stop and think about that.
Given President Trump’s massive early lead on election night, the odds — according to Dr. Cicchetti — that Biden came from behind and beat Trump in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are so unlikely that it’s next to impossible.
Dr. Cicchett’s work raises serious suspicions. How did Biden pull off this extraordinarily improbable win?
Given the overwhelming amounts of irregularities now surfacing, the answer is clear: it wasn’t luck that propelled Biden to victory. It was fraud.
READ THE TEXAS BRIEF HERE
Sidney Powell suspects CIA in rigging the 2020 elections. Why? Don't miss this exclusive…
The Milwaukee County Circuit Court will hear Donald J. Trump et al v. Joseph…
VIDEO: Thursday, December 10 2020: Members in Georgia’s House of Representatives will hold a…
BREAKING: Members of Georgia Legislature File Brief AGAINST Georgia in Texas Case
BOSIE, IDAHO — Idaho’s Lt. Governor, Janice McGeachin, announced this evening that she and…
ST. LOUIS — A judge on Thursday cited improper fundraising emails by Circuit Attorney…
WASHINGTON — In a great show of unity, 106 Republicans, more than half of…
President Mike Pence, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and Bubba McDonald rally for Senate majority.
LIVE: (AUDIO ONLY) Trump v. Biden Wisconsin Federal Evidentiary Hearing Now Underway
View Comments
PRESIDENT TRUMP EASILY WON THE 2020 Presidential election to KEEP AMERICA GREAT!
USA Election FRAUD Similar to Venezuelan Election FAUD 1999 With Smartmatic, says senior former CIA official !
I'm the Wiz and nobody beats me!
The Cicchetti analysis is referenced in the linked filing but it is described as an appendix, which is not included in the filing.
Have you had any luck tracking down the actual appendix? I have not. Presumably the Supreme Court has it. Is it on their docket?
His conclusion must hinge upon the word "given". As in: 'the odds of a Biden win, given Trump's 3 a.m. lead'.
If his analysis assumes the vote ratio prior to 3 AM (when I'll bet you the mail-in votes began showing up in the tabulations) should also apply to the incoming mail-in votes, too, then he should be stripped of his license to practice statistics.
He would be asserting the characteristics of the in-person vote was also representative of the mail-in vote. They're not.
Idiot your dialectic response is useless. Try something like common sense.
Hope this all pans out for trump..
You’re absolutely right. 99.9% of the fraudulent ballots in PA were marked as votes for Biden.
so what you're telling me is that i can flip a quarter and have it land not on heads or tails, but on its SIDE, 20 thousand times IN A ROW, (1 in 400 trillion) before Biden wins the electoral college. Where did this number come from. You can support whoever you want. But dont go around spewing bullshit statistics like this you make yourself look dumb.
You must be assuming that there is no preexisting statistical base for mail in ballots, which I believe there already was. All of a sudden, a huge batch of ballots is dumped in, overwhelmingly different than the other mail in ballots. Then the rest of the mail-in ballots fall back to the preexisting pattern.
Occam’s Razor: this “statistical analysis” is a load of foetid dingoes’ kidneys.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/08/statistical-nonsense-at-scotus/