Oh? Why in your research were highly paid lawyers unable to point to anything convincing? Why in most cases did they not even try once in a venue where lying would have penalties?
It's pretty well documented that poll watchers were denied their lawful right of meaningful observation.
The counter-claim to this is that the poll-watchers were being rude/abusive but this is the claim that does not have evidence.
The lack of meaningful observation in MI/PA alone, contrary to election law, would result in 100's of thousands of ballots being thrown out.
There are many other ways election laws were also broken. This is just the example I use that, to me, is the most straight forward and best documented.
> Why in most cases did they not even try once in a venue where lying would have penalties?
Often times the courts haven't even provided the opportunity to swear in witnesses.
Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all.
That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law.
Then going back to the premises, isn't this in PA the one where they could see, they just weren't as close as they wanted to be, and they were exactly as close as the observers from the other campaign?
> Other times, e.g. Arizona, only a few were deposed unfortunately. Probably for time reasons? It took weeks to document the affidavits. I would have preferred that Binnall had chosen other witnesses/affidavits to swear in, but there certainly wasn't time to do them all.
Time reasons sounds reasonable to you? They have raised multiple _hundreds_ of millions of dollars, and the candidate has his own funds. They can't get more lawyers and assistants to help? This has been going for weeks.
You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?
Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. If there is evidence to the contrary for the above claims, I haven't seen it.
> That's just not how it works. Even _granting_ the premise, it's not "You couldn't see well enough? Well let's disenfrancise a few hundred thousand people." That's not a reasonable remedy by any stretch of either common sense or law.
How should it work? It's not a fair system either to kick out all of the observers, and then claim that "no fraud happened" after kicking out everyone who was there to detect fraud.
The election laws exist for a reason and these laws were basically outright ignored.
Keep in mind, that even with the limited observation, there is testimony that points to specific cases of fraud. For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored. This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored.
> You don't think it's more likely that the witnesses and affidavits they're using are subpar because that's the best they have?
I don't know why they chose to select those witnesses to depose, and not the others. Perhaps Binnall personally felt those were his strongest witnesses. Maybe the other witnesses were not available to testify (or did not want to seek out the harassment).
I don't know. Judges are fallible, as are laywers, and people.
I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far.
(Please be considerate with the downvotes. I'm a new user, and I'm trying to be constructive with my posts, yet getting rate-limited due to negative karma.)
Cite them, please.
>For example, during the duplication process, when both Biden and Trump are filled in, the vote (according to testimony) went to Biden. When a challenge was raised, the challenge was ignored.
Cite this, please.
>This is one example of many where challenges were raised and ignored.
Cite this, as well, please.
>I can only tell you what I personally believe based on the evidence/testimony I have heard & read, is that there is compelling evidence and its a legitimate case worth hearing, and should not be dismissed so casually as it has often been by the judges so far.
These next two questions are real questions, not snark, I promise.
Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)? Do you really believe that?
Edit: Downvote me if you want, but at least have the decency to answer my questions. If you're so concerned about it, then get your information out in front of more people, instead of making baseless claims.
For your other citation requests, please see: https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11...
If you do a search for "Exhibit 1" this will take you to the list of affidavits.
> Honestly, genuinely, do you believe your layman perspective is more valid than someone who has spent their entire life honing their craft (judges)?
In matters of law, certainly not. In matters of right and wrong, I consider myself on an equal footing as anybody else.
I've reviewed the reasons the judges have dismissed the cases. The reasons typically boil down to either:
1) Outright dismissal without giving opportunity to provide any evidence, 2) Dismissal on technical grounds (e.g. standing), 3) Dismissal from declaring the affidavits hear-say, 4) Dismissal that grants premise that election laws were not followed but this does not prove fraud
I'm not sure what the legal standards are on what determines an affidavit to be hear-say or not, but they can be submitted to a court as evidence. Thus far, no judge (as far as I'm aware) has allowed them to be provided as evidence.
Regardless of the legal implications of affidavits and the standards they must meet to be provided as evidence in court, I have seen more than enough (dozens if not hundreds) of testimonies that provide the same consistent general picture: election laws were not followed, and in a significant way.
For point #4 above, either the election laws exist for a reason, or they don't. The election laws that prevent fraud were (in my opinion) blatantly ignored, in critical Democrat areas, amounting to hundreds of thousands of votes processed without the required legal oversight.
(For the record, wasn't me who downvoted. Thanks for engaging in constructive discussion. )
Many more documents are available, but I doubt most people have the amount of time required to read through, and much less understand in full: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/donald-j-trump...
This has also received plenty of media coverage, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michigan--poll-watch...
> Challengers are allocated one per respective party or organization to each counting board.5 > The only challenger right specifically listed with respect to absent voter ballots is to observe the > recording of absentee ballots on voting machines. M.C.L. § 168.733(1)(e)(i) (“A challenger may > do 1 or more of the following: … Observe the recording of absent voter ballots on voting > machines.”) This requirement was met at all times.6
"This requirement was met at all times". How was this finding reached? The footnotes referenced (5,6) does not provide any indication to how this was reached. Yet, this finding is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided. On what evidence was this finding based?
Further, the judgement states:
> Even Plaintiffs’ “material” allegations could not possibly support their causes of action. If > each and every one of the allegations were true (they are not true), at most, they relate to a small > number of ballots, that could not possibly change the outcome of the election.
This is just factually not true, based on the number of hours of lack of meaningful observation, which would be hundreds of thousands of votes. Again, there is no indication in the judgement how this finding was reached.
THANK YOU however for providing these links. I have not yet looked at the other two and I will review them with the attention they deserve.
Texas: Don't mess with America.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c...
Supreme Court dismisses bid led by Texas attorney general to overturn the presidential election results, blocking Trump’s legal path to reverse his loss
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a long-shot bid by President Trump and the state of Texas to overturn the results in four states won by Democrat Joe Biden, blocking the president’s legal path to reverse his reelection loss.
The court’s unsigned order was short: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, as they have in the past, said they did not believe the court had the authority to simply reject Texas’s request. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
Trump, who has appointed three of the court’s nine members, has long viewed the Supreme Court as something of an ace-in-the-hole, and called for the justices to display “courage” and rescue him in post-election litigation.
[...]
The states said Texas’s claims were hypocritical and cynical. Although Texas said in a filing that it “does not ask this court to reelect President Trump,” the suit does not ask the court to discount the votes in any state Trump won where state officials and courts altered voting procedures because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Among those states are Texas itself, where the governor made changes.
To follow up on this, specific citation is below. This witness starts at 1:34:45 in the below video. (Christina Caramo) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND...
Texas: DON'T MESS WITH AMERICA!
https://www.businessinsider.com/kinzinger-republican-lawmake...
Republican congressman rips Texas GOP for suggesting secession and says 'my guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no'
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger on Friday criticized the Texas GOP for floating the idea of secession after the Supreme Court rejected a bid to overturn the results of the presidential election.
In a statement, the Texas GOP chairman suggested that "law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said the statement should be immediately retracted and the people involved fired. "My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no," he said.
Offer ten million dollars to one of the "inside" poll workers and get first hand eye witness testimony. Surely one of them even sneakily video taped the wrongdoing so that they could sell video evidence to the highest bidder. Surely at least one of these thousands has a paper trail of communications used to coordinate the scheme. And considering that polling officials are bipartisan, surely a few thousand would be motivated to testify about the corruption!
It takes thousands to successfully conspire. It only takes one for it to fail.
I'm not saying that that's what we're dealing with here, but saying that "if bad things were happening everyone would already know" is begging the question, not a convincing argument. Noting that we'd expect odd statistical distributions of votes in the case of fraud is a better one.
That is not what I said.