Rudy and Sidney are being paid a lot to do the job and their obligation is to advance the President's position. And regardless of whether they win or lose the case, they'll be beloved by the right and they'll be able to drum up business going forward.
Gafasipmurt is correct. In law, you don't try to ambush the opposing party with evidence in front of an appellate court. That's a good way to have your evidence excluded. Appellate courts as a rule don't permit new evidence without permission of the court. To get that permission you'll need a good reason why you couldn't introduce the evidence sooner.
In general (not just in appeals courts), ambushing the opposing party is a good way to get on a judge's bad side. Court isn't the place for playing games; that's what cable network legal dramas are for.
When I reviewed the legal material in some of the President's cases, I thought it was trash, and I knew that those cases weren't going anywhere. They didn't have good evidence and their legal arguments seemed weak. I held my tongue because I didn't want to be a doomer, I didn't have the time to go through everything and explain it in a way that interested readers might understand, and because this site is an echo chamber, a self-described non-stop rally.
We were promised that this week, we would get evidence that would prove a bombshell case. That didn't happen. We got a lot of allegations, but no hard evidence to support them.
It should be becoming clearer now to people that none of these cases are going to alter the election results.
First off, how did these two unqualified bumpkins get on the Board of Canvassers? What have they been doing for the past two weeks? They realize they have a job, right and that they're not just there to collect a pay cheque? The canvass began on November 4, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. and they had 14 days to do it. What have they been doing?
And how are they so fucking dumb that neither of them bothered to read the manual that explains their job, what they're supposed to do, and what their options are? Why do I know more about their jobs after half an hour than they do?
This kind of shit just pisses me off and it looks so bad in court.
COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CANVASS:
A canvass conducted on the county level must be completed within 14 calendar days after its commencement. ( MCL 168.822) The commencement date of a canvass depends on the type of primary or election held.
a) After an August primary, a November general election or a presidential primary, the Board of County Canvassers must meet to begin the canvass at 1:00 p.m. on the day after the primary or election. (MCL 168.821)
FAILURE TO PERFORM CANVASSING DUTIES:
The authority for canvassing and certifying the votes cast at a primary or election is transferred as described below if the canvassing board responsible for the completion of the work fails to perform its duties within the allotted time period.
If a Board of County Canvassers fails to canvass and/or certify within 14 calendar days after the commencement of the canvass the votes cast for and against a ballot issue or on any office voted on within the county, the Board immediately delivers all of the necessary forms and documents to the Secretary of State. The Board of State Canvassers is then responsible for completing the remaining work involved within 10 calendar days after the Secretary of State’s receipt of the records. The county is responsible for the costs the Board of State Canvassers incurs in completing the canvass and certification. The Board of State Canvassers may enlist the assistance of the Board of County Canvassers to complete the remaining work involved.
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY WHEN CONDUCTING CANVASS: When conducting a canvass of votes, the Board of County Canvassers has the authority to take any of the actions listed below:
-
Adjourn from day to day as necessary during the course of the canvass.
-
Employ assistants as needed to assist in the conduct and completion of the canvass.
-
Direct that any records related to the election be presented at the canvass.
-
Open ballot containers to remove any records related to the election which were inadvertently secured in the ballot containers. (The Board does not have the authority to remove the ballots secured in the ballot boxes.)
-
Correct obvious mathematical errors made by the election inspectors or other canvassing boards. (All corrections should be made in red ink next to the inaccurate entries; no white out shall be used and mistakes should not be erased!)
-
Direct the election inspectors or county clerk staff (see alternative process below) to correct precinct records found to be incorrect or incomplete.
Special Note: The purpose of a canvass is to verify the proper completion of the records related to the election at hand. The investigation of alleged election law violations is not a part of the canvass. Consequently, the Board of County Canvassers does not have the authority to pass upon the legality of an election. In McQuade v Furgason, 91 Mich 438 (1892), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:“(I)t is the settled law of this State that canvassing boards are bound by the return, and cannot go behind it, especially for the purpose of determining frauds in the election. Their duties are purely ministerial and clerical....”For further information on the scope of a Board of County Canvassers’ authority when canvassing an election, refer to Attorney General Opinion No. 6230, issued on June 14, 1984
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/BCC_Manual_464331_7.pdf
So, I looked through your pictures. What's important to note is that a ballot box is a ballot container, but a ballot container is not a ballot box (though it can be). It's one of those fun A = B, but B != A situations. Lions are cats, but cats aren't lions.
This important because most of the sections you linked were about ballot boxes, and not ballot containers.
One section was from the portion of the statute dealing with the set up of Absent Voter Counting Boards. That provision required the sealing of the ballot containers, but that sealing takes place after the votes are processed and counted. Another section required a Receiving Board to make sure the ballot container is sealed, but again, the Receiving Board receives the ballot container after the ballots have been processed and counted.
Basically, the ballot box sections don't apply to ballot containers, and the other sections are talking about ballot container that are sealed after the processing and counting of the ballots.
In this case, the ballots were being transported uncovered before being processed and counted.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
In October, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania extended the period for counting absentee ballots posted by Election day by three days. So, as long as the ballots were post-marked on November 3, 2020, the ballots could be counted up to and until November 6th.
Normally in Pennsylvania, if there are issues with respect to the ID submitted along with a mail-in ballot (i.e. they didn't submit ID or there's some other issue), a voter has until November 9th to cure that ballot.
Now, given that the Supreme Court of PA granted a 3-day extension with respect to the counting of ballots, the Secretary of State inferred from the Supreme Court's decision, that a 3 day extension with respect to the curing provision should also be granted. She extended the curing deadline from November 9th to November 12th.
On its face, what the Secretary of State did makes sense, but she should have gone to the PA Supreme Court or the legislature to clarify it instead of just extending the curing deadline.
The RNC brought a court action in the Commonwealth Court of PA (which is an intermediate court below the PA Supreme Court). The RNC's position was that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to extend the deadline. Essentially, it was an overreach of her powers.
On November 5, 2020, the Commonwealth Court ordered that PA should segregate all the mail-in ballots that were cured during the three extension granted by the Secretary of State (i.e. from November 10th and November 12th).
Today, the Commonwealth Court released a decision stating that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to move the deadline back three days. The judge ruled that the segregated ballots where ID wasn't provided until after the November 9th deadline should not be counted.
Because the number of ballots involved is miniscule and were never counted, this decision has no real impact on this election, but it does provide useful guidance to the PA Secretary of State going forward.
Trump has a separate claim in front of the US supreme court with respect to the legality of the PA Supreme Court's three day extension of time for the counting of ballots that were post-marked on November 3rd.
No. That's not the precedent of this case. This case only stands for the proposition that the Secretary of State does not have the authority to change the November 9th deadline.
Further, this ruling is from the Commonwealth Court in PA. The Commonwealth Court is an intermediate court in PA. It is below the Supreme Court of PA. The Supreme Court of PA already ruled about the extension of the mail-in ballot deadline.
No court in PA can overturn the Supreme Court of PA's decision.
Tl;dr - Doesn't really matter
As I understand it, mail-in voters in Pennsylvania have until November 9 to submit valid ID in the event they failed to submit the ID with the ballot or there was some issue with their ID. So the November 9th deadline allows them to cure their mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State extended that deadline three days to November 12, 2020 based on her interpretation of another court decision. On November 5, 2020, PA was ordered to segregate mail-in ballots where identification was provided between the 10th and the 12th.
The court in this decision basically said the Secretary of State's interpretation was wrong and she didn't have the authority to move the deadline back three days. The judge ruled that the segregated ballots where ID wasn't provided until after the November 9th deadline should not be counted.
The reason this doesn't really matter is because the number of ballots this order applies to should be insignificant. Also, I don't think those ballots were even counted - I'd have to see the November 5, 2020 decision to see exactly what the injunction prevented PA from doing.
Unless the rules are different in Nevada (which they might be), this isn't an Affidavit, but an unsworn declaration. An Affidavit is sworn in front of a notary or other official designated by the jurisdiction you're in.
It doesn't appear to have been prepared with respect to a court case, as there's no court file number, or header.
Is there an unredacted copy of this document which has identifying information about the person and the polling location?
Challenged ballots in Michigan go in the tabulator because the challenge is dealt with at the polling station:
In an instance where a challenger has “good reason to believe” that a voter is not qualified to vote in the precinct, how is the challenge handled?Such a challenge must be directed to the chairperson of the precinct board. After the challenge is issued, the chairperson of the precinct board or an election inspector designated by the chairperson is responsible for supervising the challenge to make sure that it is conducted promptly and courteously.
The challenge proceeds as follows:
1)After the challenge is made, the challenged person takes the oath printed below. The oath is administered by the chairperson of the precinct board or a designated election inspector.“I swear (or affirm) that I will truly answer all questions put to me concerning my qualifications as a voter.”
2)After the oath has been administered, the precinct chairperson or a designated election inspector may question the challenged voter. Election law stipulates that the questions be confined to the person’s qualifications as a voter (citizenship, age, residency and date of registration).
3)A challenged voter is permitted to vote a specially prepared “challenged ballot” if the answers given under oath prove that he or she is qualified to vote in the precinct. A challenged voter may not vote if he or she refuses to take the oath, refuses to answer appropriate questions under oath or is found to be not qualified to vote through the answers given under oath.
4)A complete record of the challenge must be entered on the “CHALLENGED VOTERS” page in the Poll Book. The record must include the name of the person making the challenge; the time of the challenge; the name, address and telephone number of the person challenged; and any other pertinent information.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Challenger_QA_177165_7.pdf
Nothing really seems too sketchy about it. If a poll watcher or challenger is being loud and disruptive, calling the police seems like the right call. That person has violated the standard of conduct required, and really, there's no reason for that shit.
But in any event, Poll watchers don't have the same rights as Poll Challengers in Michigan. Poll watchers aren't allowed to challenge a person's right to vote, and they're not allowed to position themselves behind the elections' processing table.
This outlines the rules regarding Michigan Challengers and Poll Watchers
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED_2_CHALLENGERS_77017_7.pdf
These are the rules on absentee ballots:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/VI_Michigans_Absentee_Voting_Process_265992_7.pdf
Honestly, this video seems like garbage to me. The information in it is incomplete or misleading.
For instance, when she's talking about provisional ballots, she mentions that they have six days. The video then cuts to what is the department going to do with it? Destroy it.
In that example, she told them to issue the dude a provisional ballot. Under Michigan law, the clerk then has six days to determine whether the individual who voted on the provisional ballot was eligible to vote and if they are, the vote is counted.
The provisional ballots aren't some kind of placebo that they give to people so they'll go away.
No Romanovs survived though
Florida didn't do it all in one day. Florida state laws allow for the processing and of mail-in ballots weeks before election day. In fact this year, because of Covid, DeSantis signed an executive order allowing the processing of ballots as soon as counties completed public tests of their voting equipment.
Alot of states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, do not permit for the processing of mail in ballots until election day.
They haven't updated their website with current numbers. You can see this because if you click Info, then Voter Turnout, and then scroll down, you'll see that #82 Wayne County has reported a Voter Turnout of 0.
Obviously, Wayne County doesn't have a voter turnout of 0. If you go to Wayne County's website, you'll see their latest results, which include 568k for Biden and 260k for Trump.
https://www.waynecounty.com/elected/clerk/election-results.aspx
I didn't bother to cross-reference all of the other counties to see if the figures on the county websites were accurately reflected on the state website, but the state website is definitely not up-to-date.
They haven't updated their website with current numbers. You can see this because if you click Info, then Voter Turnout, and then scroll down, you'll see that #82 Wayne County has reported a Voter Turnout of 0.
Obviously, Wayne County doesn't have a voter turnout of 0. If you go to Wayne County's website, you'll see their latest results, which include 170k votes for Biden, and 132k votes for Trump. (Edit 2: I fucked up. Those numbers don't include the absent voter ballots. Including AV counting, Wayne reports 568k for Biden and 260k for Trump).
https://www.waynecounty.com/elected/clerk/election-results.aspx
I didn't bother to cross-reference all of the other counties to see if the figures on the county websites were accurately reflected on the state website, but the state website is definitely not up-to-date.
Edit: News outlets aren't waiting on whoever runs the state website to update their numbers.
I'm not so sure. I don't think Kerry would have made up a bunch of bullshit to go to war with Iraq and finish what daddy started. And the world would have been a much better place these last 17 years without ISIS. Not to mention impact of the Iraq War and its aftereffects on the US deficit.