They may well be in the affidavits that the Trump campaign released. I am listening to the audio of the interrogation of the postal worker. As fascinating as this is I'm not on this full time. I only said that Giuliani was claiming he had massively more witnesses that posters in this thread were saying. He clearly is. He was clearly claiming 50-60 a few days ago. I didn't claim to have personally spoken to any of the witnesses, background checked them, or confirmed their inside leg measurements.
Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election
- Thread starter Meadmaker
- Start date
- Status
I'm not aware of him saying people couldn't have copies. I'm aware of people claiming he said he wouldn't and him saying that that wasn't true. As to not important stuff. We must have different definitions of important. The stuff about him getting a 50% cut of his son's salary seemed important. The stuff about interest free loans to the Biden family from China seemed important. There was other stuff too, but the laptop isn't the topic of the thread.
I'm not sure how many witnesses there are. I haven't yet read through the mass of affidavits. Reuters has reported they were released, so I assume they are out there... I've only seen snipping's so far. I assume we aren't doubting Reuters.
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1326394667542441987
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Well, that's a lot of pages. Sounds like the lawyers are going to be busy.
Since these are affidavits, they are sworn testimony, so it should be possible to check them out.
https://youtu.be/QkNkQ2nDQfc?t=4163
1h9m20s
They are pushing him hard to express doubt about what he heard.
I would think so.
I think this may be the retraction:
https://youtu.be/QkNkQ2nDQfc?t=4355
They are getting him to remove interpretation from the affidavit and provide clarification. He definitely needed a lawyer. He doesn't withdraw his claim, or his understanding of what happened. We'll see. Still nearly an hour to go.
At the moment it's like a video I saw about why you shouldn't talk to cops without a lawyer. They are friendly, friendly.... and slowly edging his position. He is concerned that the new affidavit they are coaxing him to sign will be kept secret by the postal service. He wants assurance that they will let a copy be made public, they say positive things and don't make a promise.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
These come from a new lawsuit filed today. (It's the one you linked earlier from the Western District of Michigan - I think, as opposed to the one filed in Wayne County yesterday.)
Here's the Detroit free Press' take on those affidavits.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/po...duct-do-not-show-widespread-fraud/6247949002/
It's so easy to make things look much worse than what they are, and some of this looks pretty bad from one side. (i.e. if you believe everything in the affidavits)
I foresee people going to considerable effort to present the other side. That's why we have courts.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
I have read most of the complaint, specifically as it relates to Exhibit B which is an affidavit by a witness who worked for the city and processed ballots. The affidavit contains 11 specific points related to election fraud or misconduct.
I notice a pattern. The statements all appear to be testimony of serious misconduct. However, each statement is specifically worded such that it just falls short of actually being a statement substantiating a violation of the law. There is always a possible exception not mentioned that would mean everything was actually done properly.
1) For example, the witness says she worked at a satellite location and saw many people there who had been sent an absentee ballot and who were allowed to vote on a new ballot without turning in the ballot they had been sent or signing an affidavit that the ballot had been lost. That sounds bad.
If a person is sent an absentee ballot and they want to vote at the polls on election day, they have to either turn in their absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the ballot was not received or was lost or destroyed. (MI ST 168.769)
However, this was at the clerk's office, not the polls. The law provides that up to 5 PM on the Friday before the election a voter may submit a written request to the city or township clerk to have the ballot spoiled and get a new ballot. (MI ST 168.765b) That new absentee ballot could then be completed in-person at the clerk's office. (There are other cases where this can be done slightly later, but still before election day, where the voter had already mailed a ballot or who signs an affidavit for a lost ballot.)
That means that there is a perfectly legal means by which a person who has been sent an absentee ballot can show up at the clerk's office and vote on a new ballot without turning in a ballot or signing an affidavit for a last ballot. The witnesses testimony oddly neglects to mention that that did not happen.
The witness testimony can be completely true with no violation of the law.
2) Similarly, the witness says she was processing ballots and was told by her supervisor not compare signatures (the law requires signature verification for absentee ballots). That sounds bad.
However, the witness does not say what step of the processing she was working on. There are processing steps both before and after signature verification. The law specifies that signature verification must be done by the board of inspectors of election. (MI ST 168.766) The witness does not say she was on the board. In fact, she says she was "assigned to work in the Elections Department for the 2020 election" which implies that she was not on the board.
If she was not on the board, it would not have been her responsibility to verify signatures, and she would actually have no legal authority to make decisions on signatures. The supervisor would have been completely in the right to instruct her not to verify signatures because that would have been somebody else's job.
The witness testimony can be completely true with no violation of the law.
This pattern repeats with all the claims. It appears to be a Gish gallop game forcing defense attorneys to play hunt-and-seek through the laws and possible scenarios to solve the riddle of "guess what obscure detail we failed to mention."
It's bad. They spend the first half getting his confidence and the second half pressuring him into rephrasing the affidavit so it is weaker. They push, push, push for an hour and rewrite the addifavid for him. I'd say he was a fool for not insisting on a lawyer, but smart people have made the same mistake. The only thing that saves him is the recording he made which he tells them about at the end.
Unless there is another interview where he then recants this second affidavit.... the congress creature who said he recanted is a damned liar.
It's equally easy to make things look much better than they are.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Thank you. That sniffy "the media doesn't get to pick the President, ya know!" is really getting a little old. The media isn't "picking the president," or claiming to, anymore than anyone else who follows the numbers and sees how they trend is. It's a non-binding prediction, not an non-Constitutional coup.
(And you know who else doesn't get to pick the next President? The present one, Mr Donald "I won! I won!" Trump.)
I take it Twitter is fact checking them all when they call him President elect?
I should add, I think Veritas were leaning things in the opposite direction but they are certainly acting more honestly than the congress woman/USPS.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
A) why do you regard it as bad?
B) why do you feel the second affidavit doesn't recant the first?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,491
5 million more Americans voted for Biden. That ain't the media.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
That's what I imagine will be happening, at least unless the judge looks at it and finds a very quick reason for dismissing it without even bothering.
In the new lawsuit today I'm even wondering about some situations. One affidavit says the same batch of ballots was run through the machine five times. Whoa- now that's bad. Right?
Well, darned if I know. Are there calibration ballots in use? I would imagine that the machines can be checked for accuracy running a known set. Or...maybe they were rejected four times? I have no idea.
What I see in a lot of them is evidence that when it appeared Trump was losing, a call went out in the middle of the night to spread the alarm among Republican volunteers to get down to the TCF Center to save democracy, resulting in a bunch of annoying yahoos interfering with people trying to do a job. The yahoos were armed with a little knowledge (as in the proverb) and were a pain in the neck.
And when all is said and done, that's why there are checks and receipts and recounts and all the rest, so if there is true monkey business it can be detected. We'll see what comes of it. My guess is not much, except possibly some suggestions for improvement. Next time around, there will be warning. This time, we suddenly had covid restrictions thrown on top of things, creating millions of mail in ballots instead of the usual few thousand.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
After listening to that, it's probably not correct to say he recanted. It's also pretty clear that the Veritas lawyers wrote the affidavit for him in a manner that claimed much more than he actually witnessed. While I would say that, if his claim that the supervisors had the ballots separated from the regular mail is true, it raises suspicion, he has no direct evidence that any ballots were actually backdated. His claims certainly warrant further investigation, but unless corroborated by other witnesses and absent actual direct evidence of backdating, it's nothing.
I'm not sure I would want to entirely trust either affidavit for what his claim is. The cleanest version is here:
https://youtu.be/QkNkQ2nDQfc?t=1277
As you say, it needs investigation.
No way does he have the knowledge, intelligence or ability to make such a plan.
- Status