@james j for a mayoral race and funded by MS-13

Yeesh

It does have words in it though.

I like how all these GOP Michigan witnesses happened to be threatened and didnt do anything wrong at all and for some reason the cops had to take them away and everyone was so happy they cheered and thats bad because they were definitely following the rules

The police will take them away if they are not leaving the premises.

And are told to.

To give you the strongest version of your argument-say Republican poll watchers in concert continuously spit on dem watchers and vote counters, and were then kicked out. Should vote counting resume without Republican watchers?

if they all spit on people should the counting resume? whats the alternative?

If they spit on people, I'm pretty sure that's a crime.

You can scream at only so many walmart greeters about how they are violating your constitutional rights before you run out of walmarts and end up at a polling station.

The alternative would be to stop counting until new Republican watchers are present, as required

what if they keep spitting those votes just dont count?

You pause until you find Republican watchers that don’t break the rules. Otherwise you’re breaking the rules.

I feel like if you made a good faith effort and one party entirely couldn't follow the rules they were given by law that is more their fault than the workers

They were present @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

@Dedkraken There was likely no laws broken.

I don't understand this argument.

There are several affidavits stating that votes were counted without Republican watchers present at 6 ft.

maybe not laws but city regulations or whatever I think the legislature lays out how they specifically do it

Lol those are the ones he's talking about. Yup.

Doesn’t matter who’s at fault for breaking the procedure, you can’t consider the count legitimate if the procedure is not followed.

And this affidavits were thrown out as spam @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

The fact that affidavits didn’t result in decertification does not mean that they are untrue

theres nothing that says every single action taken must have a specific observer 6 ft away thats unnecessary

@james j Incorrect, what you're referring to is a specific case of unverified affidavits farmed through very haphazard means.

That's the problem with affidavits that don't hold up in court. They're junk.

I mean some affidavits certainly can

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 ____?