I had been researching this article for some time with plans to post today. The events in DC make this entry in my blog feel more necessary. The integrity of our country’s presidential election has never been more scrutinized as it has been in recent weeks. Much has been made of the many losses that Trump’s team has suffered in the courts, but what can be said of the evidence which they touted publicly. One of those first pieces of evidence was a 234-page collection of affidavits from approximately 100 Michigan residents, many of whom volunteered to be poll watchers/election challengers. Inserted below are clippings from a handful of the statements:
The first thing I noticed was that repeated appearance of similar phrases in some of the statements, specifically: Throughout the day, I witnessed a pattern of chaos, intimidation, secrecy, and hostility by poll workers. You’ll see the phrase repeat three times in the images, (and a few more times in the entire document). The likelihood that multiple people would use the exact same words is slim to none. It suggests use of a template which, given the gravity of what’s being signed, strikes me as inappropriate.
Secondly, most of the affidavits offer opinions and observations, rather than facts. Many spoke on their personal difficulties during the poll watching process rather than observed fraud. A little over a dozen simply attested to the fact that they didn’t get to poll watch at all. Generally, comments went under two categories: 1) I thought what happened was strange and 2) what happened was not what I expected and I thought that was strange. This likely has to do with a lack of understanding regarding the vote counting process. For example, I’m asked to watch an electrician repair a light socket to make sure he doesn’t do anything sketchy. The first thing I should know is… how to repair a light socket. Unfortunately, many of these well meaning and passionate individuals didn’t understand what they were observing, but most importantly, quite a few didn’t understand their role.
Poll watchers are not the same as election challengers. Poll watchers are strictly allowed to observe, not challenge. Guidance from Michigan’s Secretary of State makes it clear that only election challengers can issue challenges. The types of challenges are specific as well, but perhaps the one most applicable is absent voter challenge which states: If an absent voter ballot is challenged, prepare the ballot as a challenged ballot and make a notation on the Challenged Voters page in the Pollbook. Proceed with routine processing and tabulation of the ballot.
Many of the affiants suspected fraud since ballots that were challenged were processed anyway, but the steps as described above, show that nothing was out of order. As a novice to the intricacies of vote counting, my thoughts on this are not definitive. I don’t assume that there were no errors, but the entirety of the document makes a poor case for elevation to the level of fraud.
As it turns out, the case made by the 100 affiants was so poor that none were chosen by Giuliani to be a star witness when he spoke before a panel of Michigan lawmakers. No, that distinction went to the now infamous Melissa Carone, whose appearance before Michigan representatives went viral.
In her affidavit, she states that, ‘I witnessed countless workers rescanning the batches without discarding them first, which resulted in ballots being counted 4-5 times’ and that she, ‘witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place.’ She attributes much of the fraud claim to ballots being counted over and over. The issue is that once a hand recount is done with the actual ballots, an error of this magnitude would be revealed because counters would only account for the one ballot. Again, the issue is that someone whose expertise is in another area (Ms. Carone served as an IT contractor during the election) is judging whether or not a process unfamiliar to them is accurate or not.
The reality is her testimony doesn’t add up…but the ballots do.
USELESSLYRANDOM 
Whatever can be said about the paucity of substance in the affidavits, many questions yet remain unanswered, leaving many Americans with lasting distrust of the process. This is a bad Omen for our system of democracy. “You gov”in a poll taken early in January asked following:
1: millions of fraudulent and absentee ballots were cast;
2: voting machines were manipulated;
3: thousands of votes were recorded for dead people;
75 % respondents said the statements are accurate or somewhat accurate. Quinnipiac, in a January 21st poll found that 70% of Republicans, and 17% of Democrats believe that the election was tainted by fraud. So much for trust in the system for future elections.
Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth 4 exceptions when voting by mail is permitted. The state legislature then passed Act 77 allowing no excuse mail in ballots. The Pennsylvania Court rejected a challenge to this because there had been “too much good faith reliance on the No Excuses regime.” It doesn’t require a brilliant legal mind to see that this is an irrational and disingenuous dodge. For example, in 1691 Virginia law made interracial marriages illegal. These laws were in effect until 1967, 291 years of good faith reliance, yet these laws were declared unconstitutional. The long and short of it is, good faith Reliance on an unconstitutional act doesn’t make it legal.
Another glaring problem: portions Allegheny County and Westmoreland County in Pennsylvania are in the same district. 2349 ballots lacking dates, were counted in the Allegheny County part of the district; all ballots lacking dates were rejected in the Westmoreland part of the district. There was a 69 vote difference for the winner.
An insouciant dismissal of valid claims will not do to restore the lost Trust of 70% of Republicans nor the 17% of Democrats believe that the election was fraudulent. The onus is on those opposing these claims to explain items that damage or discredit their position.( in Georgia for example , one claim was that 4049 people used post box addresses which is illegal. The answer: we investigated these claims; these were not post box numbers, they represent apartment numbers in multiple dwellings. Case closed)
There were documented claims in Georgia of poll workers mixing late ballots into the regular pile. A hundred recounts will not detect this problem.