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

I could be wrong but I dont think that judge/case was even in that state I want to say that was an Arizona one but I dont remember

@james j This is a long shot from saying "all affidavits of this group were proven to be unverifiable and useless".

plus congress hearings are different

I submit that it's conceivable that false testimony can be given, particularly when solicited for a specific agenda.

@james j It's relevant to the quality of affidavits gathered through haphazard means, yes.

No I said the affidavits were thrown out and none were shown to be verifiable or proven true @Maw

Not even by the lawyers submitting them

They admitted most of them were lies and spam

I think we're getting technical terms mixed up.

For instance: Tell me what you think the term "innocent" means, and the term "not guilty"

I’m saying people are taking these affidavits as gospel when many of them are unverifiable and doesn’t mean the standard of practically useable evidence

That was one case, these are not the same affidavits.

Great then show me some affidavits that are verifiable and shown to be true and accurate

... that's not how affidavits work. You can't usually prove an affidavit to be true.

You can have evidence that supports it

There are certain steps to verify accuracy of affidavits.

Something behind just I saw this or I saw that

yeah some of them had evidence