Ok! I just dialed in on Trump's Az election lawsuit hearing before judge Kiley & you know things are not going well when the Judge is asking counsel 4 Trump Inc:
You're telling me that some of the web solicited declarations you submitted, you yourself determined that are false?
You're telling me that some of the web solicited declarations you submitted, you yourself determined that are false?
https://twitter.com/NicoletteGlazer/status/1326347823927812097
Judge: "The ones that you submitted you simply could not prove that are false, is that correct? How is that a reliable process of gathering evidence?
Trump Inc atty: But judge the residual exception is a good one and apply, they could have seen the "green button".
Trump Inc atty: But judge the residual exception is a good one and apply, they could have seen the "green button".
493 Declarations were apparently submitted by Trump to support their claim that because of the "green button" there were overvotes, but according to county counsel there were only 180 overvotes in the entire election.
OMG! Apparently, all these declarations were solicited online where ppl could select a few radio buttons and then the declarations were generated using pre-sent language without an opportunity for the "affiant" to either consider what is generated or to elaborate on the testimony
Judge: I want to remind you that the residual requires that there is indicia of trustworthiness to the process. Just because you were not able to prove that the ones you submitted are not false, does not suggest that the process is reliable and trustworthy.
8 Declarations that were submitted in filings to the court had to be removed by the Plaintiffs because counsel who submitted them found out that the ppl who submitted were not at the polling places and thus cannot have seen situations of overvotes. JFC!
Perhaps this is why Snell & Wilmer withdrew from representing the AZ GOP Committee in the case?
So the in limine against the declarations was granted. They are out! No shit.
Ok! In this one, it seems that the question is the interpretation of election manual?! about what is the procedure for overvotes. County claims that there is no private cause of action and as to the mandamus claim there is no mandatory duty to right.
The Plaintiffs' attorney just declared that this case is not about "voter fraud" or "stealing the election" just about "good faith errors in the operation of the voting machines that require the affected ballots be reviewed".
* or right
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
