In Michigan, based on testimony/affidavits: 1) The poll workers were almost exclusively Democrats. 2) It was only Republican poll watchers who were being thrown out 3) Republican poll watchers were not replaced after they were thrown out 4) By the end of the night there were only a handful of Republican watchers 5) The Democrat poll watchers would harass the Republican poll watchers until they are thrown out 6) The reasons provided to throw out Republicans were applied unevenly (Only applied to Republicans)

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.)