3 ms·

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

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.)

Loughla 6y ago
>Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. 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.
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  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.-11-10-20-trump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf 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. )
  - afuchs 6y ago
    For the sake of balance, this defendant's motion to dismiss is also relevant since it directly disputes these claims: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/31/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/31/donald-j-tr... 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-for-president-inc-v-benson/ 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-watcher-affidavits/2020/11/11/4d073d7a-2447-11eb-a688-5298ad5d580a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michigan--poll-watch...

Loughla 6y ago

>Again, this is based on the dozens of testimony/affidavits I've heard & read. 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.

prucomaclu 6y ago
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.-11-10-20-trump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf 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. )
- afuchs 6y ago
  For the sake of balance, this defendant's motion to dismiss is also relevant since it directly disputes these claims: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/31/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/31/donald-j-tr... 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-for-president-inc-v-benson/ 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-watcher-affidavits/2020/11/11/4d073d7a-2447-11eb-a688-5298ad5d580a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michigan--poll-watch...