3 ms·
> The vast majority of the issued in these affidavits were not addressed by the judge. You're missing a fundamental point: anyone can make wild, nonsensical cl
by SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> The vast majority of the issued in these affidavits were not addressed by the judge.
You're missing a fundamental point: anyone can make wild, nonsensical claims. it is not for the judge to "refute" them, it is for the plaintiff to substantiate them. Prove your claims or walk. They walked.
I don't know why you nod along with this, or why you think you know better than the judge while making such basic errors. But that is your issue.
- prucomaclu 6y ago> You're missing a fundamental point: anyone can make wild, nonsensical claims. it is not for the judge to "refute" them, it is for the plaintiff to substantiate them. The affidavits were not "wild, nonsensical claims". The judge just ignored the dozens of affidavits entirely. On this issue, the judge cited exactly 1 affidavit from the defense, with the defense's testimony that they weren't allowed to enter due to it being at capacity. (2 affiants, 1 affidavit) First - even if that testimony is true, it does not address the plaintiff's legitimate complaints that: 1) Republican poll watchers were illegally being removed from their positions 2) Republican poll watchers who were removed, were being replaced with Democrat poll watchers 3) As a result of the above, tables were illegally having 2 Democrat observers The judge did not even try to address the above claims At all. Just ignored them completely. Because the defense had 1 affidavit that was barely remotely related to the claims the plaintiff was making.
- prucomaclu 6y agoIt's a sad state in America when judges dismiss legitimate claims as being "wild, nonsensical" for literally no reason except partisan politics, and 50% of the country is OK with that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]