A Michigan judge has denied the Trump campaign's motion to cease certification of the vote in Detroit, noting that if the election challengers had attended orientation, they would know that what they were witnessing was routine.
A claim that workers were instructed not to ask for ID was made less credible because the affiant failed to, y'know, say when or where it happened, or how many times.
As for the claim that she was told not to compare signatures, that task was completed elsewhere--which is something a competent lawyer might have felt the need to look up before alleging fraud.
It sounds like a different witness signed an affidavit saying she believed the other people's affidavits?
Typically, witnesses are not allowed to say whether they believe or don't believe other witnesses, and must have personal knowledge of what they're talking about. Baffling.
Another witness, the judge says, is simply clueless, ascribing massive ballot fraud to the use of rental vans with out-of-state plates.
A bit of lemon and salt on the wound here.
One guy thinks ballots have to be in sealed boxes. They don't. Another guy thought voting machines were connected to the internet. They weren't.
One thing that can hurt your credibility as a witness is already believing a conspiracy theory before you even get to be a poll watcher.
This is the account of the lawyer who almost got arrested trying to get past a police officer to get into a room to decide voter eligibility. That decision was already made elsewhere, and no one was allowed in past capacity.
Long story short, the judge's decision is based almost entirely on the credibility of the witnesses. And he finds that, because there are other remedies available, an injunction is unnecessary, and likely harmful to the interests of Michigan voters.
Finally, I'm not confident that spamming a court with a bunch of bogus affidavits is ethical.
You really are supposed to learn what talking about, try your best to be honest, and let the Court know if something false slipped in.
Not just throw stuff at the wall.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Justice Alito once dissented from an opinion holding that officers were not authorized to strip search a ten-year-old girl who was not named in the search warrant.
The officers claimed that they were authorized to search the child because they had asked for permission to search "all occupants." But the judge only authorized them to search the male resident in the warrant he signed.
Alito, then a judge on the Third Circuit, would have held that although the warrant did not name either female occupant, it was intended to, and there was probable cause to strip search them.
Gavin McInnes is currently suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for describing the Proud Boys as a "hate group," claiming that they're mostly known for handing out Christmas presents.
There have been no filings in this case for almost a full year, despite some excellent lawyering from the SPLC. The case was reassigned to a new judge on that date, pictured below:
Voter fraud conspiracy enthusiasts are engaging in what you might call a Gish Gallop, throwing tons of arguments against the wall to see what sticks, to make it exhausting an distracting to debunk.
Gish gallops are difficult to handle, because it is actually very easy to make something up, and very difficult to bear down, investigate, and show why the lie is not true.
For instance, I could say, right now, that Ivanka Trump voted illegally in Pennsylvania.
That took me no effort at all to say. Now, to prove me wrong, you go through voter registration and you say "AHA, she's not registered."
And then I say, "She didn't use her real name."
Now, even more work to debunk. You've got to track her travel, or show fraud impossible.
Are they reassuring foreign adversaries that they won't be meaningfully punished for assisting them in the election and then lying to the public and the FBI about it?
Pennsylvania GOP are alleging that officials checked to make sure that ballots were properly filled out and gave people an opportunity to fix those ballots. The cure?
Some pretty last minute work to file this on November 3 when they apparently knew about this on October 31, assuming it happened.
The evidence that the ballots were improperly "pre-canvassed" (checked for defects) appears to be that ballots were on a table where anyone could get to them.