Comment by prucomaclu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prucomaclu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Start by making a specific claim.

Specific claim: During the counting at the TCF Center in Michigan, Republican poll watchers were denied their legal right to meaningful observation. This resulted in many hours of counting without oversight, with hundreds of thousands of ballots counted during this time. This was in violation of state law:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/...

Evidence: List of affidavits here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru... Witness testimonies during the Michigan legislature hearing: https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/4110372688977369...

> I refer you to this brief response to the "Texas lawsuit": https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337119761902276608

That link mostly addresses Texas lack of standing to challenge PA's elections, which I am in agreement with - Texas does not have standing here. I would be more interested in a source that addresses the specific claims being made in the Texas lawsuit. I reference the Texas lawsuit only as a useful document, as it has a fairly well summarized list of complaints for each state.

> I've seen the quality of such that you provide elsewhere in this thread, I don't see the point in you doing this again.

No problem. I am genuinely interested in seeing an honest refutation of the claims being made by these witnesses. The judges haven't provided that. The media most certainly hasn't. From the replies on HN here, only 1 or 2 people have attempted to provide constructive information. The rest, very similar to yours, is primarily ad hominem and casual dismissal.

If you do have something productive to add, that would correct my perspective in a constructive way, I am genuinely eager to hear it.

> Specific claim: During the counting at the TCF Center in Michigan, Republican poll watchers were denied their legal right to meaningful observation.

Basically, this junk again?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25373634

it was "not credible" (1), it was thrown out of court, the end.

Move on. Accept that the election is over and it didn't go your way. That's what happens in democracies. The only question, is, is the USA still a democracy?

1) https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/11/michigan-judge...

Judge Kenny's judgement is below: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/...

For the specific claim that we are discussing (poll challengers being kicked out at TCF), his ruling does not address the substantial number of affidavits that were provided.

The only place in the document where he addresses the meaningful observation issue, is in page 8, where he considers just one of the plaintiff's affidavits. Many affidavits on this issue were provided, with testimony to the effect that Republican observers were not allowed to do their job, kicked out, and they were not allowed to replaced. There is testimony that the Republican observers that were removed, were replaced with Democrat observers, resulting in many tables having 2 Democrat observers at the same table, and no Republicans.

The vast majority of the issued in these affidavits were not addressed by the judge. The closest that Judge Kenny came to addressing the above is with the below quote from page 8:

> Democratic party challenger David Jaffe and special consultant Christopher Thomas in their affidavits > both attest to the fact that neither Republican nor Democratic challengers were allowed back in during > the early afternoon of November 4th.

First off, this is 2 affidavits, compared to the dozens of affidavits that were provided by the plaintiff.

Second, it doesn't address at all the issue of Republican observers being kicked out. It only addresses the issue of observers not being allowed back in. It also does not address the imbalance of Democrat/Republican observers.

For this specific claim that we are discussing, dozens of affidavits simply were not addressed. This judge, as did the judge prior, simply ignored the vast majority of affidavits without addressing them. And then labelled the entire case as "not credible".

Again - we are discussing a specific claim (by your suggestion), so I would very much like to see where these specific claims/affidavits are deemed "not credible."

Outside of this specific claim we are discussing, I'm curious if you think this woman is similarly "not credible"? The issue that she is outlining seems pretty illegal to me with very little room for interpretation. Other witnesses made similar claims as well.

Christina Caramo testimony starts at 1:34:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND...

> The only question, is, is the USA still a democracy?

Very valid question.

> The vast majority of the issued in these affidavits were not addressed by the judge.

You're missing a fundamental point: anyone can make wild, nonsensical claims. it is not for the judge to "refute" them, it is for the plaintiff to substantiate them. Prove your claims or walk. They walked.

I don't know why you nod along with this, or why you think you know better than the judge while making such basic errors. But that is your issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com