More likely is that most if not all of them saw something innocuous, but constant screaming about corruption from certain public figures colored their recollection a bit.

It's like when you hear a muffled audio recording but it's incomprehensible, and then you're told by a headline, "Can you believe Mr. X just said Y?". Then you listen again, and voila, you interpret the audio as Y. You've been primed to hear Y, so your brain hears it.

When you've been primed by all your anti-establishment media sources to see fraud, then you think back to that time 3 weeks ago when you thought you overheard two coworkers at the mail-sorting center talking about "post-dating the ballots". Well, maybe they didn't say "ballots" exactly... But it was "post-date the fourth", and surely they meant "November 4th", right? I mean election day was the 3rd, and they weren't trying to count late ballots, were they? But what else could they have meant? And they sure looked suspicious when I came over and interrupted them. I mean they didn't mention ballots again that whole conversation because I guess they were worried I would tell someone.

Reading through some of the affidavits and watching the interviews gives the impression that these are well-intentioned folks who just wanted to report something without understanding the context, and they've been primed for fraud. Unfortunately, they get picked up by politicians and media figures who have a clear pro vote-rigging agenda, and get made a martyr for the cause by plastering their face all over OANN, Project VERITAS, etc. It's depressing to watch.

Edit: For fun, here's a tweet demonstrating the audio-priming example you can try for yourself! https://twitter.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1086436669413183488

Coz there is a significant risk of penalty, of jail time. That's what a sworn affidavit is, is it not?

Where was this risk aversion during the storming of the Capitol on January 6th?

I think what you say is true of most people, but it seems very clear that we have a group which doesn't behave like most people.

> Where was this risk aversion during the storming of the Capitol on January 6th?

Are you asserting that some of the same people who filed affidavits also entered the capitol own jan 6th? Is there any evidence for this?

> I think what you say is true of most people, but it seems very clear that we have a group which doesn't behave like most people.

I think we as a society are moving past the whole "judge some people by the actions of some different people" thing.

All that means is that there are thousands of people willing to risk jail time if they're shown to have lied. It says nothing about whether they lied or not.

For what it's worth I imagine many of them think they're telling the truth, or at least are honestly putting their name to something they've been told and believe. That also doesn't mean they're right though.

You can create a sworn affidavit that says you suspected someone did something evil. It's a true statement that doesn't prove someone did something evil.

Did you read the affidavits? They include statements of fact, not just "I felt it was wrong." They can therefore be disproven with material evidence. If they are disproven with material evidence then that person will go to jail.

Only if they knowingly engaged in deception.

They could also just be wrong.

There's a reason why eye-witness testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

This does not imply that "If the person does not go to jail, then the person was telling the truth."

No but it does make it less likely that they were lying, because of the penalty of jail time.

No there’s not. Especially if a lot of folks do it. At most, a judge gives them a stern talking to. No federal judge will order real jail time.

Illegally storming a US federal building to overturn the results of an election you don't like is illegal, so clearly no-one would do that.