The Trump campaign released that 234-page stack of affidavits from poll watchers in Detroit tonight. So far, it's mostly allegations that they couldn't get as close as they wanted to the counting, couldn't re-enter the room after they left, etc. Pretty standard election stuff.
There's a claim of ballots being counted more than once.
There are a bunch of claims about city workers being hostile to Republicans, cheering when they were escorted out of the room and that kind of thing.
There's a claim that a poll worker backdated the receipt date by some ballots.
One Republican poll watcher said the independent lawyers observing the process seemed pretty liberal to him.
One Republican poll watcher found it suspicious that members of the military would vote for Joe Biden.
Several Republican poll watchers said there was "collaboration" between their Democratic counterparts and city officials, but so far none has said what that was exactly or how they know it happened.
They further allege that Democrats were mean.
Many Republican poll watchers complain that they weren't allowed to talk to city workers, but instead had to speak with supervisors.
One Republican poll watcher said city workers were wearing Black Lives Matter apparel, and one of them was large.
One Republican poll watcher said a police officer handcuffed him after he refused to let the officer close a door, even though he would have let the officer do that if the officer told him how many poll watchers were in the room. (This person is a lawyer.)
A common complaint among Republican poll watchers is that they were told to stay 6 feet away from other people and they thought this made it harder to monitor things.
There are a lot of complaints about low-level city workers doing what they're told and not listening to Republican poll watchers' very reasonable suggestions about how they should actually do it differently.
One Republican poll watcher notes that the police guarding the door of a counting room were "heavily armed."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Twitter's lawyers told a federal court yesterday that nothing in the "Twitter Files" cited by Donald Trump actually show that the social media platform was a tool of government censorship.
Twitter also says the appointment of a new CEO won't result in any changes to its content moderation strategy.
Twitter's lawyers also point out the problem with claims -- echoed by the company's CEO -- that the government was paying it to censor people. (The gov't was paying it to comply with search orders, which it is required to do by law.)
The Mar-a-Lago special master is telling Trump's lawyers to say once and for all whether they really think the FBI planted evidence during its search, as the former president has publicly alleged.
This isn't the first time Judge Dearie has told Trump's lawyers to essentially put up or shut up about the things they've been saying in TV but not in court.
A lawyer from the Texas Attorney General's office just entered an appearance in the 11th Cir. case over classified records at Mar-a-Lago. He claims to represent Texas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.
Texas' brief is quite a document. It's basically a litany of why-Biden-is-bad-and-shouldn't-be-trusted, going through everything from immigration litigation to theories about COVID's origin to the Vice President's assertion that the border is secure.
Texas - with support from 10 other states - says courts should mistrust this administration. It argues Judge Cannon was right to set aside the "presumption of regularity," though she didn't actually do that.
A federal court in Florida has dismissed - for many different reasons - former President Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, various government officials and various others over "Russiagate." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judge: Trump's 193-page conspiracy allegation "is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief."
The judge said Trump's lawsuit that he was the victim of a plot by Hillary Clinton and others relied on misrepresented evidence, legal theories rejected by the Supreme Court and hyperbole to settle political scores. And that's just what you see before page 5.
One of the lawyers who asked a federal court to invalidate two of the three branches of government, @kellyesorelle, says she's filed another case in the Supreme Court to invalidate the 2020 election.
I checked with the clerk today. There is no such case.
This is not surprising. You can't just file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court (unless you happen to be a state and are suing another state or similar things). And even then you can't just file a lawsuit; you have to file a motion for leave to file. None of that has happened.
(Many thanks to the person who took the time to call me to ask about this.)
A large part of the totally-unsubstantiated theory that the FBI actually incited the Jan. 6 riot started with people not understanding how to read charging documents and making assumptions about their misunderstanding. And it's gone downhill from there.
Guys, there were federal agents in the crowd on Jan. 6. We know because one of them, a DEA agent, was prosecuted.
Here he is showing his creds.
He was with his brother, an FBI agent, who was investigated but not charged. He even went on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about it.
Here's the story. The DEA learned one of its agents was at the Capitol (with his weapon) because he was group-texting pics to a bunch of other agents. reuters.com/article/us-usa…