Michigan judge rules against Trump observer petition, claiming ‘hearsay’ evidence

Michigan judge rules against Trump observer petition, claiming ‘hearsay’ evidence

[Ed. – Law & Crime makes this sound as if the issue is whether evidence of fraud is “hearsay.”  It’s not.  The issue is whether the Trump campaign is entitled to observe the vote count, regardless of whether there’s specific evidence of fraud.  The campaign is so entitled, and a federal judge will find for the campaign.  There will be a basis for mandating a recount in a number of states when this is done, and that is absolutely what must happen.]

In President Donald Trump’s second loss in court in a single day, a Michigan judge rejected the Trump campaign’s bid to stop counting ballots without their inspectors present. The judge scoffed at plaintiffs’ “hearsay” evidence that a lawyer said she heard from a poll worker regarding dates supposedly changed on ballots.

“‘I heard someone else say something,’” Michigan Judge Cynthia Stephens said on Thursday, summing up an affidavit submitted by the Trump campaign. “Tell me how that is not hearsay. Come on now!”

An attorney for the Democratic National Committee, seeking to intervene in the case, argued that the Trump campaign lacked factual support.

Trending: CBS reporter dares to ask Biden substantive question, gets Trump-type answer

Continue reading →

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.