Judge Kenny's judgement is below: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf https://www

Judge Kenny's judgement is below: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf 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=UU8Ioh4atNDO5a0Vy2qFmauQ&ab_channel=NTD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND... > The only question, is, is the USA still a democracy? Very valid question.