4 ms·

> 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 themse

> 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-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ 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-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ 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))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-733 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.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. The bullshit asymmetry principle means that I don't have the free time to dig into that; and if I did, I would not spend it on you. Again: the election is over and it wasn't close. This "The South will rise again" stuff would be pitiful if it wasn't so nasty.
- prucomaclu 6y ago
  > And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. If you have just 2 minutes I would kindly request you play below video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... Her testimony starts at 1:34:45. If I'm not supposed to take her testimony at "face value", how am I supposed to take it? Am I supposed to: 1) Assume she and the others are lying to get Trump elected? 2) She was on an acid trip and it never happened? 3) Something else? Please - help me understand. I am genuinely interested in why I should dismiss her and not pay her any attention.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN and especially please don't be a jerk to others, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ChrisLomont 6y ago
First, the thing you linked calling a judgement is not a judgement. It's a filing by Trump's team. The affidavits are smoke and mirrors. There is no reason to believe what is in them is true - the point of the case is that the plaintiff has to demonstrate they are true, and this was not done. In fact, so many of the Trump lawsuits were ridiculous, that Trump and co dropped them right as they were about to reach trial. The particular case you list has all filed documents here [1]. The entire court hearing is archived on C-SPAN here [2]. >This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided Affidavits are not fact. Repeat that to yourself until you get it. Affidavits are not fact. Stop believing them simply because they sound good to you. If you honestly listened to the court case, you'd recall, as is clear on the C-SPAN recordings I linked, that this affidavit was hearsay, and inadmissible as evidence for this type of action. This is law 101. This is precisely why affidavits are not fact - they must be demonstrated. It's trivial in a nation of 320 million people to find a person willing to sign an affidavit for anything. However that does not make unicorns real nor does it overturn an election. Hearsay has no bearing on a case requesting this outcome. The judge was even very, very lenient on asking over and over why this was not simply hearsay, and the lawyers kept trying to avoid answering, and they wobbled all over the place. It's actually embarrassing to have to watch them get caught with their pants down. This is also why so many reputable lawyers dropped out of this on Trump's side - his requests are nonsense, and will eventually get lawyers disbarred for such a joke. Those firms know they want business in the future and cannot professionally afford to blow up their firms for this nonsense. From a scan of the testimony, the judge in MI ruled well - Trump demonstrated zero fraud. If he wants to disenfranchise voters he needs to demonstrate actual fraud, not cry and tout conspiracies. Now, if there was large scale fraud, Trump could easily prove it (I'll explain how researchers can check there is no widespread fraud in a moment). Trump also knows this, but his followers apparently are too dumb to do so. Every state has a list of who voted; some states make the list public. All states provide the lists for researchers and groups like Trump's team. If you claim there is, say, 5% fraud somewhere, get that list, sample say 500 people randomly on the list, send pollsters out to make those people voted. If 5% of votes are not real people, then you'd expect 25 people on your list to not exist, or similarly. Trump has already tried this - you can tell because his team keeps releasing names of people they claim are dead but voted, and so far in each case the media has located the actual person and shown Trump wrong. So out of the tens millions of votes they have looked into, just like researchers do, they have found at most a few cases they questioned. How do you think they get those names? They do exactly this, see there is no demonstrable fraud, then launch this 3rd rate legal circus, which is solely designed to grift money from gullible rubes. So far that has worked to the tune of about $200M, enough to help Trump with his legal problems once out of the Whitehouse. So - stop posting this goofy crap - it has no bearing on reality, and that has been demonstrated over 50 times around the US so far. Trump's lawyers knew this, but brought it anyways for the theatre of it all. This is not the action of a man who wants to win and has evidence. This is a con man running up support to raise money from his rubes WITH ALL CAPS PLEAS FOR HELP, only to take their donations and pocketing them. Sorry you ate this crap fest and believed it. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/donald-j-trump... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?477831-1/michigan-judge-denies-trump-campaign-access-request-observe-vote-count# https://www.c-span.org/video/?477831-1/michigan-judge-denies...

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

> Each one provided testimony with a consistent pattern: the Republican poll observers were harassed, kicked out, and not allowed to do their job. And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. The bullshit asymmetry principle means that I don't have the free time to dig into that; and if I did, I would not spend it on you. Again: the election is over and it wasn't close. This "The South will rise again" stuff would be pitiful if it wasn't so nasty.

prucomaclu 6y ago
> And I'm sorry that you take this laughable stuff at face value. If you have just 2 minutes I would kindly request you play below video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... Her testimony starts at 1:34:45. If I'm not supposed to take her testimony at "face value", how am I supposed to take it? Am I supposed to: 1) Assume she and the others are lying to get Trump elected? 2) She was on an acid trip and it never happened? 3) Something else? Please - help me understand. I am genuinely interested in why I should dismiss her and not pay her any attention.
dang 6y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN and especially please don't be a jerk to others, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ChrisLomont 6y ago

First, the thing you linked calling a judgement is not a judgement. It's a filing by Trump's team. The affidavits are smoke and mirrors. There is no reason to believe what is in them is true - the point of the case is that the plaintiff has to demonstrate they are true, and this was not done. In fact, so many of the Trump lawsuits were ridiculous, that Trump and co dropped them right as they were about to reach trial. The particular case you list has all filed documents here [1]. The entire court hearing is archived on C-SPAN here [2]. >This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided Affidavits are not fact. Repeat that to yourself until you get it. Affidavits are not fact. Stop believing them simply because they sound good to you. If you honestly listened to the court case, you'd recall, as is clear on the C-SPAN recordings I linked, that this affidavit was hearsay, and inadmissible as evidence for this type of action. This is law 101. This is precisely why affidavits are not fact - they must be demonstrated. It's trivial in a nation of 320 million people to find a person willing to sign an affidavit for anything. However that does not make unicorns real nor does it overturn an election. Hearsay has no bearing on a case requesting this outcome. The judge was even very, very lenient on asking over and over why this was not simply hearsay, and the lawyers kept trying to avoid answering, and they wobbled all over the place. It's actually embarrassing to have to watch them get caught with their pants down. This is also why so many reputable lawyers dropped out of this on Trump's side - his requests are nonsense, and will eventually get lawyers disbarred for such a joke. Those firms know they want business in the future and cannot professionally afford to blow up their firms for this nonsense. From a scan of the testimony, the judge in MI ruled well - Trump demonstrated zero fraud. If he wants to disenfranchise voters he needs to demonstrate actual fraud, not cry and tout conspiracies. Now, if there was large scale fraud, Trump could easily prove it (I'll explain how researchers can check there is no widespread fraud in a moment). Trump also knows this, but his followers apparently are too dumb to do so. Every state has a list of who voted; some states make the list public. All states provide the lists for researchers and groups like Trump's team. If you claim there is, say, 5% fraud somewhere, get that list, sample say 500 people randomly on the list, send pollsters out to make those people voted. If 5% of votes are not real people, then you'd expect 25 people on your list to not exist, or similarly. Trump has already tried this - you can tell because his team keeps releasing names of people they claim are dead but voted, and so far in each case the media has located the actual person and shown Trump wrong. So out of the tens millions of votes they have looked into, just like researchers do, they have found at most a few cases they questioned. How do you think they get those names? They do exactly this, see there is no demonstrable fraud, then launch this 3rd rate legal circus, which is solely designed to grift money from gullible rubes. So far that has worked to the tune of about $200M, enough to help Trump with his legal problems once out of the Whitehouse. So - stop posting this goofy crap - it has no bearing on reality, and that has been demonstrated over 50 times around the US so far. Trump's lawyers knew this, but brought it anyways for the theatre of it all. This is not the action of a man who wants to win and has evidence. This is a con man running up support to raise money from his rubes WITH ALL CAPS PLEAS FOR HELP, only to take their donations and pocketing them. Sorry you ate this crap fest and believed it. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-benson/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18619867/donald-j-trump... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?477831-1/michigan-judge-denies-trump-campaign-access-request-observe-vote-count# https://www.c-span.org/video/?477831-1/michigan-judge-denies...