4 ms·

>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 Bide

>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...
  - prucomaclu 6y ago
    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.

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...
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  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.