Yes, affidavits are a thing.

Pretty sure.

it just seems like these folks might have some bias

How dare you.

Just like breaking the chain in evidence admissibility validity: You can have practically irrefutable proof dismissed if the means of gathering it were in question.

And those affidavits were dismissed because of the means of acquisition.

counting is supposed to be a civil process you dont have a right to disrupt the voting area

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire it’s means they are unverifiable and useless. You seem to be taking it as fact

@james j Incorrect.

Correct. Show me a verified affidavit that could indicate voter fraud @Maw

Not all is lost. You can make mock hearings and recite whatever you like uncontested and turns out that's just as good for some people.

Verified meaning proved to be true @Maw

Michigan wasnt a mock hearing though

Proved to be true meaning ____?

they said by the book no Jenna and Guiliani

@james j Show me where he said various affidavits were invalid. No, the affidavits were thrown out because of the questionable means of getting them. This was nothing about specific affidavit's integrity.

Giuliani is testifying to his first hand knowledge of people claiming things right now.

This was the process in which the affidavits were gathered.

In Michigan.

some of the testimony isnt in an affidavit but they presented the evidence they had some stories were more and some less suspect

What does it mean for an affidavit to be proven true?

You generally cannot prove an affidavit to be true.

Otherwise it'd not really be an affidavit.

Also it's really hard to prove affidavits to be false.

It's about being proven dubious and it happens all the time.

I think you can still get evidence to corroborate to give them more weight at the very least it can provide them questions to hit the officials in charge with

I guarantee after some of the reports several of them shared they went to the people in charge and asked things

@Maw the judge asked about them, he summarized that affidavits were not factual just that they could not be proved to be true, which is not useful

thats a specific set of them though

@james j He said the process in which the affidavits were gathered was haphazard, therefore it casts enough doubt on all of them (even the ones that could have some standards of verification) to throw them all out.

Sure find me something that doesn’t match that exact description

This happens with evidence very frequently.

Little technicalities can completely invalidate the use of otherwise sound evidence.

that specific stack of affidavits was collected from internet comments on a forum and they didnt do any legwork to either try to add some evidence or figure out what was wrong or was weird stuff

Yep.

Id give more credibility to poll observers that were eye witnesses and then came to testify like in MI

@Maw he explicitly said “you left in the ones you could not prove false” that standard of affidavit is extremely low

It's a break early in the chain.

Okay, so the affidavits are not useful and will not overturn certification. But your claim was that all watchers were present during the count, and the affidavit contradicting that were untrue because the judge said so. But in fact the judge only said they were not useful.

@james j Yes, I am aware. This is not contrary to what I have said thus far.

It’s relevant to the quality of the affidavit not just how it was gathered @Maw