prucomaclu2

If I'm understanding your position correctly, its basically that the people providing testimony are all liars?

I haven't seen evidence of that, and cases being dismissed is likewise not evidence of that.

> That claim was pretty thoroughly demolished in the case and in the replies to that comment.

Source?

> again, just look how idiotic the cases are being run

I agree completely with this. The legal teams have not done a good job.

> hearsay

This word just means it can't be provided as evidence. It does not mean that the person is lying.

This is indeed a fair point.

Several of the lawsuits have been dismissed on the general basis that "election laws being broken is not evidence that fraud occurred".

It's logically a true statement, and I think it's a fair opinion to have.

But I do disagree with it: The laws regarding poll observers are designed to detect fraud. It is extremely hard to detect fraud when the poll observers aren't allowed to do their job, or when their challenges are ignored.

I get that the optics are bad: throwing out hundreds of thousands of ballots doesn't make anyone look good.

But what's the point of election laws if ultimately it doesn't matter when they are broken?

I'm not an expert in election laws, but I would be very curious if this standard of proving fraud has generally been applied for previous election cases in the same way.

That's a fair point, which is why challenged ballots get marked as "challenged" and not "rejected".

It is the duty of the observers to challenge ballots.

It is the duty of the election workers to record these challenges, which wasn't happening.

The only reason her challenge should have been denied is if she was shown to be challenging ballots indiscriminately or she was preventing the election workers from doing their jobs. To my knowledge, there has not been any evidence that this was the case.

Challenger rights are detailed on page 28: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/XI_Election_Day_Issue...

It is not the Trump legal team's responsibility to prove that this woman (and the others like her) was impartial. Their only obligation is to provide a "preponderance of evidence" that supports their case. Given the large number of affidavits that their team has provided of a similar nature, it seems reasonable that the case should be allowed to be heard in a manner that takes both sides seriously.

Your reply was probably flagged because it had only a link. Generally people expect some content to go with a link.

I also doubt most people on HN have the patience to wait for that site to load. It took like a minute.

And of course it's pro-Trump, but I'm sure that's only a small reason why it was flagged.

(Odd thing, I posted a comment to you earlier and it's not visible except when I am logged in. Hopefully at least you saw it.)

This woman's testimony starts at 1:34:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXkAv7yKgw&list=UU8Ioh4atND...

I use this example because I find it particularly blatant, but there are many examples to choose from.

According to her testimony, ballots which had two intentional marks (e.g., one for Biden, and one for Trump) would go to Biden.

When she raised challenges to this, she was ignored. When she escalated to the supervisor running the floor, she was ridiculed.

There were many other witnesses at TCF Center who shared similar stories.