Another issue is just what the affidavits allege. Many filed by the Trump campaign don’t actually allege wrongdoing, but rather refer to alleged issues in the vote-counting process. And as The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, Emma Brown and Hannah Knowles reported this week, many of them have been rather thin:
“Shocking allegations of voter irregularities revealed in 234 pages of signed and sworn affidavits,” the Trump campaign wrote on Twitter.
But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”
Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court.
The most this proves is that the Trump Campaign was being run by amateurs
This is Rudy Giuliani, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who brought down the mob, America's mayor and former Presidential candidate. Rudy is not an amateur. He knows exactly what he's doing when he submits hundreds of irrelevant affidavits- he is working to distort the perception by the gullible of the presidential election. To introduce doubt dishonestly where no honest doubt exists.
Statistically it probably is plausible that such a high number of people voted for one candidate. Certainly it should raise alarm bells as it looks like something out of Putin's textbook
No alarms. Detroit is only 14% white and that 14% skews way younger and more female than National averages. Trump improved significantly on his 2016 performance but that still only amounted to 5% of the vote. Detroit's vote is totally in line with national demographic trends.
What it also demonstrates is that the GOP could not organise a conspiracy to try and pull down a government. On the other hand - the Democrats would think that they - the Democrats - are clever enough to do it. Arrogant people.
Let's recall that the Michigan GOP created a law that allowed the Republican governor to replace democratically elected Black mayors with unelected superseding White Republican supervisors at will. The Michigan GOP stormed the statehouse just last summer and republican militias were caught plotting the lynching of the Democratic Governor just this fall. The GOP is trying to pull down Michigan's government regularly and recently. There is no Democratic equivalent in any other US state. I have no idea why you would even try to make this claim.
That result is telling. Many people are involved in the counting of ballots. Plenty of them are dispatched to observe the process on behalf of one party or another. And given Trump’s claims about voter fraud in the months before the election, you can bet those who decided to participate would be on the lookout for anything that might strike them as being problematic.
Don't forget too that Biden's office was putting out that Trump received help from Putin at the last election even trying to impeach him for it. Only to have the reports come back throwing it out as bogus.
Well, that's another lie. The Mueller report stated it couldn't prove collusion because the Trump administration obstructed his investigation.
The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American.
Mueller explained that because the President could not be indicted and because it wouldn't be fair to accuse Trump of crimes without benefit of judicial exoneration, Mueller would not accuse the president of the 10 counts of impeachment worthy obstructions of justice in the cover-up of Russian connections but stressed that the President was not exonerated of any of these crimes and deferred to Congress for impeachment. In fact, Congress has yet to impeach Trump for any of the crimes Mueller documented. We don't know if Trump can be held criminally liable after his presidency for crimes committed in office.
It is a well-established fact that Trump received help from Putin in the 2016 election and that Trump invited, applauded, rewarded and benefited from that enemy's influence over our 2016 election. The Mueller report states this plainly.
Trump was impeached in January 2020 for illegally extorting the Ukrainian government to manufacture evidence that might embarrass his political rivals.
The Democrats are not squeaky clean. Your point is valid - yet when anyone did complain - what happened? They were mocked - you have no evidence.
I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying the Democrats share blame for GOP attack on the Capitol because they claimed no evidence when no evidence existed?
It’s also not something that even the many authors of affidavits cited by the Trump campaign truly have to worry about. It’s significant that they decided to make these sworn statements. But contrary to what Giuliani said, most of them make no conclusive allegations of wrongdoing, and many more don’t seem to constitute genuine evidence — according to the judges tasked with reviewing them.
This may be the case - but it is not the many - it is the some which is important. Even one statement making one statement is evidence.
In your world I could claim that Tradesecret is a satanic cannibal and then forever claim that there is at least some evidence that Tradesecret is a satanic cannibal. We have to treat fake and wrong evidence as no kind of evidence at all or we risk suggesting possibilities that have no grounding in fact.
And to say that everyone of these affidavits is faulty or dodgy is - implausible. It really is. Statistically impossible.
Crazy BS. You're saying if I get 100 people to sign affidavits swearing that Tradesecret is a satanic cannibal then it is statistically impossible that you are not a devil-loving people eater?
“If he is talking about affidavits that the swearers will submit or that Giuliani will submit as their authorized agent in a judicial proceeding, they would be at risk of a perjury prosecution,” said Julia Simon-Kerr, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. “If he’s talking about affidavits he’s collected to wave in front of reporters, but that won’t be submitted in a judicial proceeding, they would not subject the swearers to a perjury prosecution.
“Given the disjunction between what is actually happening in the courts and what he is talking about,” Simon-Kerr continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the latter.”
This is just an opinion and an opinion which wants to believe the impossible - and that is that every single affidavit contained not even a skeric of evidence worth considering. And that simply is too big an absurdity to seriously maintain.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so"
If you or anybody is aware of a single affidavit filed that contained a skeric of evidence worth considering, I have not seen it or heard mention of it. Since Giuliani has not published most of the affidavits he claims show evidence and every affidavit has shown no evidence of any kind we have to treat these claims of evidence as entirely false.
