Sorry to say, the Judge got this one right.

In the portion of the decision that was underlined, the judge is commenting on the evidence presented by Mr. Sitto. Mr. Sitto, swore the following in his Affidavit:

a) At approximately 4:30 a.m., on November 4, 2020, the man in his 50s got on the microphone and stated that another shipment of absentee ballots would be arriving and would have to be counted.

b) I heard other challengers say that several vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and unloaded boxes of ballots.

c) At approximately 4:30 a.m., tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables.

d) The same procedure was performed on the ballots that arrived at approximately 4:30 a.m., but I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden.

e) While counting these new ballots, I heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for Joe Biden.

Here's the problem: his evidence is garbage.

1. The Judge is correct to point out that Sitto doesn't actually know how many ballots were brought into the TCF Center at approximately 4:30 a.m. on November 4, 2020. Sitto is just guessing that there were tens of thousands, and Sitto provided no information as to how he reached that conclusion.

2. More importantly, Sitto only assumed that all of those ballots were counted for Joe Biden. Sitto's evidence doesn't meet that threshold. What it does say is as follows:

a) Every ballot he observed was cast for Joe Biden. The problem here is that Sitto never indicated how many ballots he was actually able to observe in enough detail to see the vote. Was it 5? 10? 50? 100? This number matters a lot and the fact that he doesn't say how many ballots he observed leads me to believe it was a small number. My reason for thinking that is that any competent lawyer would have asked him, "how many ballots was that?" in response to his claim, and if that number would have helped their case, the lawyer would have included that information in the Affidavit.

b) Sitto stated that he heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. This is better evidence in that it's more specific, but it doesn't help prove any fraud. Here, he's talking about 25-30 votes in total. The issue is that when you're counting ballots in groups of 5-6, you are going to get groups of 5 or 6 ballots that are all for the same candidate. Hell your chances of flipping a coin 5 times and getting heads 5 times is 3.125%. To put that in perspective, that means that on average every 32 groups of 5 coin flips (160 total flips), you're going to have one group that is all heads. Of course, elections aren't 50/50 and mail-in ballots in Michigan favour the Democrats, so your chances of getting a group of 5 votes for Biden would be higher.

If there were tens of thousands of votes being counted, and the votes favored democrats, you're going to have quite a few groups of 5-6 for Biden.

In the end, what the judge said was correct. Sitto's evidence was speculative and as Biden won the state, you'd expect him to observe votes for Biden when they were counting those 4:30 a.m. ballots.

The onus is on the Plaintiffs to prove the case on their motion, and one candidate getting more votes than someone else isn't proof of fraud or that anything irregular occurred.

So either the lawyers dropped the ball with this one, or the people who came forward to them didn't have any evidence of fraud, but the lawyers were instructed by their clients to bring the motion anyway. My guess would be the latter.

Sorry to say, the Judge got this one right.

In the portion of the decision that was underlined, the judge is commenting on the evidence presented by Mr. Sitto. Mr. Sitto, swore the following in his Affidavit:

a) At approximately 4:30 a.m., on November 4, 2020, the man in his 50s got on the microphone and stated that another shipment of absentee ballots would be arriving and would have to be counted.

b) I heard other challengers say that several vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and unloaded boxes of ballots.

c) At approximately 4:30 a.m., tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables.

d) The same procedure was performed on the ballots that arrived at approximately 4:30 a.m., but I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden.

e) While counting these new ballots, I heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for Joe Biden.

Here's the problem: his evidence is garbage.

1. The Judge is correct to point out that Sitto doesn't actually know how many ballots were brought into the TCF Center at approximately 4:30 a.m. on November 4, 2020. Sitto is just guessing that there were tens of thousands, and Sitto provided no information as to how he reached that conclusion.

2. More importantly, Sitto only assumed that all of those ballots were counted for Joe Biden. Sitto's evidence doesn't meet that threshold. What it does say is as follows:

a) Every ballot he observed was cast for Joe Biden. The problem here is that Sitto never indicated how many ballots he was actually able to observe in enough detail to see the vote. Was it 5? 10? 50? 100? This number matters a lot and the fact that he doesn't say how many ballots he observed leads me to believe it was a small number. My reason for thinking that is that any competent lawyer would have asked him, "how many ballots was that?" in response to his claim, and if that number would have helped their case, the lawyer would have included that information in the Affidavit.

b) Sitto stated that he heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. This is better evidence in that it's more specific, but it doesn't help prove any fraud. Here, he's talking about 25-30 votes in total. The issue is that when you're counting ballots in groups of 5-6, you are going to get groups of 5 or 6 ballots that are all for the same candidate. Hell your chances of flipping a coin 5 times and getting heads 5 times is 3.125%. To put that in perspective, that means that on average every 32 groups of 5 coin flips (160 total flips), you're going to have one group that is all heads. Of course, elections aren't 50/50 and mail-in ballots in Michigan favour the Democrats, so your chances of getting a group of 5 votes for Biden would be higher.

If there were tens of thousands of votes being counted, and the votes favored democrats, you're going to have quite a few groups of 5-6 for Biden.

In the end, what the judge said was correct. Sitto's evidence was speculative and as Biden won the state, you'd expect him to observe votes for Biden when they were counting those 4:30 a.m. ballots.

The onus is on the Plaintiffs to prove their case, and one candidate getting more votes than someone else isn't proof of fraud or that anything irregular occurred.

So either the lawyers dropped the ball with this one, or the people who came forward to them didn't have any evidence of fraud.

Sorry to say, the Judge got this one right.

In the portion of the decision that was underlined, the judge is commenting on the evidence presented by Mr. Sitto. Mr. Sitto, swore the following in his Affidavit:

a) At approximately 4:30 a.m., on November 4, 2020, the man in his 50s got on the microphone and stated that another shipment of absentee ballots would be arriving and would have to be counted.

b) I heard other challengers say that several vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and unloaded boxes of ballots.

c) At approximately 4:30 a.m., tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables.

d) The same procedure was performed on the ballots that arrived at approximately 4:30 a.m., but I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden.

e) While counting these new ballots, I heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for Joe Biden.

Here's the problem: his evidence is garbage.

1. The Judge is correct to point out that Sitto doesn't actually know how many ballots were brought into the TCF Center at approximately 4:30 a.m. on November 4, 2020. Sitto is just guessing that there were tens of thousands, and Sitto provided no information as to how he reached that conclusion.

2. More importantly, Sitto only assumed that all of those ballots were counted for Joe Biden. Sitto's evidence doesn't meet that threshold. What it does say is as follows:

a) Every ballot he observed was cast for Joe Biden. The problem here is that Sitto never indicated how many ballots he was actually able to observe in enough detail to see the vote. Was it 5? 10? 50? 100? This number matters a lot and the fact that he doesn't say how many ballots he observed leads me to believe it was a small number. My reason for thinking that is that any competent lawyer would have asked him, "how many ballots was that?" in response to his claim, and if that number would have helped their case, the lawyer would have included that information in the Affidavit.

b) Sitto stated that he heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. This is better evidence in that it's more specific, but it doesn't help prove any fraud. Here, he's talking about 25-30 votes in total. The issue is that when you're counting ballots in groups of 5-6, you are going to get groups of 5 or 6 ballots that are all for the same candidate. Hell your chances of flipping a coin 5 times and getting heads 5 times is 3.125%. To put that in perspective, that means that on average every 32 groups of 5 coin flips (160 total flips), you're going to have one group that is all heads. Of course, elections aren't 50/50 and mail-in ballots in Michigan favour the Democrats, so your chances of getting a group of 5 votes for Biden would be higher.

So if there were tens of thousands of votes being counted and the votes favored democrats, you're going to get groups of 5-6 for Biden a lot.

What the judge said was correct. Sitto's evidence speculative and you'd expect him to observe votes for Biden during the mail-in counting portion, if Biden got more votes during that portion.

The onus is on the Plaintiffs to prove their case, and one candidate getting more votes than someone else isn't proof of fraud or that anything irregular occurred.