They can be cross-referenced.

No one can say they didn’t see the unverifiable thing they thought they saw

The video thing was refuted

Person x's testimony lines up with person y's testimony and person z's testimony etc. It builds a story.

You don’t need a affidavit for that

Seems the largest precinct is around 1850 voters....I can't imagine how anyone can't keep ballots cast vs registered voters balanced in numbers that small. I've checked in more "members" to country clubs in a day than that and we didn't have any non-members on the course.

https://www.waynecounty.com/documents/clerk/nov20_votestats.pdf

Sure... But that's not the smoking gun of massive voter fraud.

@Recalibar when an actual defendant is in court then they would have a legal team and get affidavits and witnesses at that point

Sure, let me pull up the Arizona case where these testimonies were presented...

And I must point out that I let the obvious "Country Club" reference alone... Though, I was tempted. 😉

I’ve seen much of these hearings @Recalibar

They are just claims , you would not expect countering affidavits

What would they even say

No but some MI townships had massively high numbers of registered voters vs residents....as high as over 700%....in the UPDATED affidavit of Ramsland's. I'm sure whatever assistant put the original info together accidentally copied MN townships in but the updated one most definitely reflects Michigan townships.

WORKING at a country club is NOT the same as being a member....I've been working class all my life.

But Michigan is also HUGE on golf courses....TONS of them.

Do they do golfing tournaments in the snow like they play football in the snow

I believe but not 100% theres an election manager in the counting center organizing then supervisors employees and independent observers. The results are counted but then given to the city or township clerk which is kind of like a math/record keeper role. They can go back if something is way off and check out what's up. The board is supposed to gather all the tallies from the county and make sure all precincts are there. Missing number or math issues that kind of thing but they tally and pass to state. States the same. Then once certified lawyers and laws on the books can come in to audit recount look for fraud on the final results. This seemed the case in Michigan at least states can setup different. Most state or counties have random audits so they dont have to pay to heavily check everything but can catch wrongdoing.

@Dedkraken, you just advanced to level 22!

We closed during snow.

Maybe not, I'll admit that I'm not familiar enough with law to be certain on this, but what I would say is that I'm partial to believing people who are criminally liable to getting prosecuted for false statement than those who aren't. I would appreciate if people came forward with signed affidavit claims there wasn't any of this alleged wrongdoing involved. Instead all I see are incredibly competent lawyers.

They are not criminally liable. You can’t disprove a unverifiable assertion. They have nothing to lose @Recalibar

That’s the only way you get in trouble

And if you qualify with “this is what I think I saw” or “appears to me”

Further distances you

Lying is hard to prove

> You can’t disprove a unverifiable assertion.
I'm one of those pesky sorts that believes that "The plural of anecdote is data." With thousands of anecdotes, especially in the case of the TCF center claims, under criminal penalty of false testimony, support that the TCF video demonstrates fraud. Before the video was even released.

@Recalibar also where are these incredible competent lawyers

"40-1" apparently. Guess which side I'm referencing to.

Many people have been gaslit for months to think there will be fraud and so they see fraud where it isn’t.

I gave the vodka water analogy earlier

I don't see any witness testimony that there wasn't wrongdoing. I would like to see it, and I feel like that's a pretty low bar to set. Feel me?

I watched the NV court hearing stream the other day. It doesn't take long. There was a stark difference between the Trump campaign lawyer and the defense. It was eye-opening for me. You hear the RWM that judges are dismissing cases without considering the evidence, but after watching the case and reading the ruling - Trump's team was woefully outmatched. I can give you the links, if you are interested.

Telling people for months that so and so is a drunk (and it’s in your favor that they are a drunk) you then you show them a video of that person drinking a clear liquid. Those people will believe and want to believe that this person is drinking vodka when in reality he is just drinking water @Recalibar

For the testimony bits I found the state congress senate and house hearings to be mostly a lineup of GOP witnesses to show issues. The state boards hearing though was a mix of experts saying like you shouldn't be making rules or being a judge, lawyers conning them they should do whatever they want, folks that oversaw the election counting, the reviewers, and independent observers that are supposed to keep an eye on both sides and were like look the GOP watchers were acting up. You gotta follow rules. https://youtu.be/lytepDbGK5E

Plus that county lady showed up and said I was emotional we dont do audits somewhere in the middle

They touch on the laws as well surrounding the certifying

I also read that ruling....he basically excluded all eye-witness affidavits because they were not giving in person testimony as hearsay, then he took weight off of expert witnesses.

Aye, I watched this, too. Van Langevelde basically said "This is a serious issue that needs addressing but I do not have the power to issue an audit before signing off on this date" but none of the people who were alleging there was no wrongdoing are under any sort of oath to tell the truth. Whether in court or signed affidavit.

That was not ruling on the validity when so much was excluded by his own choice.

Well none of the people at the state hearings are under oath either and nobody is going after them for an affidavit 😂 they just say it's under penalty of perjury as a fake way to amp up their claims