NEW: The Trump campaign is trying resurrect the very first lawsuit it filed (and lost) in Michigan on Nov. 6. The new submission--an appeal late last night to the MI Court of Appeals--suggests the campaign is scraping the bottom of the legal barrel in Mich.
Here's what I mean:
Here's what I mean:
The suit first appeared in front of the MI Court of Claims right after the election and accused state officials of mishandling absentee ballots in places like Wayne County.
It was dismissed by Judge Cynthia Stevens. The campaign has waited until now to appeal.
It was dismissed by Judge Cynthia Stevens. The campaign has waited until now to appeal.
The main proof of wrongdoing it offered was an affidavit by a GOP poll challenger, Jessica Connarn, who claimed a poll worker at the Detroit convention center told her that she herself had been told by other workers to change dates on certain absentee ballots.
Judge Stevens, in the Court of Claims, described this affidavit as "inadmissible hearsay within hearsay" and discounted it.
(Connarn also had a photograph of a Post-It note that she claims came from the poll worker and documented the instruction to change absentee ballots. Judge Stephens did not credit that evidence either: a photo of unknown provenance of a Post-it note of unknown provenance.)
Now the Trump campaign is claiming: "Jessica Connarn’s affidavit is not hearsay."
How?
Trump's lawyers say that Connarn's described a firsthand experience w/someone who described having a conversation with someone else.
Which is quite literally the definition of hearsay.
How?
Trump's lawyers say that Connarn's described a firsthand experience w/someone who described having a conversation with someone else.
Which is quite literally the definition of hearsay.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
