prucomaclu

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.

> For the specific claim made above (Biden and Trump both filled in, going to Biden), if I recall it was one of the witnesses during the Michigan legislature hearing.

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...

> 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.

> And those judges were probably presented solid evidence that amounted to more than conspiracy and hand waving.

The problem is, that many of the judges themselves are guilty of hand-waving away the evidence/affidavits.

Take for example the below judgement: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru...

Regarding the challenger rights to observation, the judgement says the below: "This requirement was met at all times.(6)"

This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/1/donald-j-tru...

I watched the entirety of the Michigan legislature hearing. I heard the affiants speak. Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. This would be in direct violation of state law (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d3swxbgf3srsrnw20ak5uthw))/...).

Nowhere in the judgement does the judge address the affidavits. The footnote for that statement (6) just calls it a "conspiracy theory" without addressing the substance of the affidavits at all.

This is generally the case for most of the judgements I have read. Other judgements are denied based on technicalities/standing.

Not a single judgement I have read has addressed the actual substance of the affidavits that have been provided.

Thanks for the links. I have reviewed the first link some weeks back. From what I can tell, the judgement falls under the "casual dismissal" category. Aside from the fact that the judgement is loaded with clearly biased editorializations, it doesn't provide adequate justification for its findings. As an example:

> 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.

> The judge didn't see it that way:

> "This court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens."

That's his opinion and he's entitled to it, but it's not a universal truth that illegal ballots can't be thrown out. Judges have thrown out ballots before. Judges have even thrown out elections even after the candidate is sworn into office.

> Perhaps it's merely a partisan tactic.

Make no mistake about it, this is a hugely partisan issue. The "Left" is convinced beyond doubt that Trump is trying to overturn the election. The "Right" is convinced beyond doubt that the election was a fraud.

When the truth of a subject is determined largely by what party you associate with, it's pretty clear to me that there aren't any objective parties in this discussion.

I don't vote (its against my code of ethics; see Voluntaryism) and I don't associate with any party, so I believe I am about as objective as you can reasonably expect to find on this topic.

> "mountains of it!" rather than specifics is hand-waving gish-galloping stuff.

I'm happy to provide evidence to anything I've claimed.

For an executive summary of the evidence available, the Texas lawsuit is a good starting point (first 36 pages). https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

For Michigan specifically this document has an overview of affidavits (from Nov 10): https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11...

Most of the evidence I have heard is from the many hours of testimony I have watched from the state legislature hearings (PA, MI, GA, AZ). Links can be found online.

For an executive summary of the evidence available, the Texas lawsuit is a good starting point (first 36 pages). https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

For Michigan specifically this document has an overview of affidavits (from Nov 10): https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/1.-11...

Most of my information has come from watching the many hours of state legislature hearings (PA, MI, GA, AZ). I don't have a link readily available but they should be easy enough to find if you look.

There have been a few witnesses in these hearings that have been debunked. For example one lady testified that people were voting in MI without identification. Which is perfectly legal. A bit disconcerting, but legal. Other witnesses have provided wild speculation (e.g. Smartmatic hacking) with indeed no evidence.

The vast majority of the witnesses at these hearings, however, do seem to be legitimate complaints. It seems odd to me, that a reasonable person, after listening to their testimonies, would not at least have some doubts regarding the integrity of the election.

Whether it's the constitutional issues regarding signature matching in PA, or the poll watchers being thrown out in MI, or the many other issues at hand, it seems that at least one of these reasons would be cause for concern. And these aren't small issues - they could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of ballots.

So when people say that there is "no evidence" - I am a little bit shocked, surprised, at how quickly these claims are dismissed. Usually people point to the judges' casual dismissal, as justification for their own casual dismissal. Very rarely have I seen much effort made in actually investigating the claims that have been made. Actual investigation into these issues have been limited at best, and done with the strict intent of "debunking" rather than trying to get to the truth.

( Please be considerate with the downvotes. I am a new user and the negative karma is causing rate limits, effectively censoring me from this discussion. I am trying to have reasonable, constructive discourse. )

Maybe it just seems this way, but it seems like it's been a very long time since a US President has not started any new wars.

I agree with you - it is a point in his favor that he's at least trying to pull out of these wars.

I think it was 2 years ago, he announced he was pulling out, and the media instantly went into panic mode, calling the actions reckless, attacking his decision.

So I will give credit where credit is due. He's at least trying to pull out of the wars.

For the specific claim made above (Biden and Trump both filled in, going to Biden), if I recall it was one of the witnesses during the Michigan legislature hearing.

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. )

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.)

> unable to point to anything convincing?

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.

The Arizona case was denied essentially because the affidavits were declared hear-say, because the testimony wasn't provided during court. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't make sense to me.

First, it took weeks to document their testimony - it would likely take further weeks to basically re-do their testimony in court / depositions.

Second, if it was so important that their testimony be sworn in to his court, why dismiss the case entirely, instead of just allowing the plaintiff to bring the witnesses to the stand?

It's pretty easy to dismiss a case as "having no evidence" when you ignore the 100's of affidavits as hear-say. Sure, it's not sworn testimony in court, but to automatically assume every one of them is lying, is a bit of a stretch.

Another rationale that has been used to dismiss cases is that evidence that the law was broken is not evidence that fraud that took place.

It's pretty much beyond dispute at this point that in several states, credentialed Republican poll observers were not allowed to do their job in a meaningful way - contrary to state law. (referring to MI/PA)

When literally hundreds of thousands of ballots are being counted without any oversight, those ballots should be thrown out. Not because its proof that fraud happened, but it is proof that the controls to prevent fraud were not in place (that were legally required to be in place).

"No evidence of widespread fraud", is true. But what is also true, is that there are mountains of evidence of election laws that were ignored/broken, that in a fair election, would result in those ballots being thrown out.