Rulings On The Trump Campaign’s Allegations of Ballot Counting Fraud

(4 Minute Read) Not surprisingly, the media’s reporting on Judge Kenny’s ruling in Michigan regarding allegations of fraudulent ballot handling is spun in favor of the Democrats. (Note that this ruling is unrelated to the alleged electronic fraud on Dominion Voting Systems which is planned to be filed in court this week.) Not being a lawyer, but having followed various proceedings, here’s what I took from the Michigan decision that contains similar or the same issues in other states to be decided.

Unnecessary Judicial Swipes at the Highly Credible People (ex. State Senator, Former Assistant Attorney General) Swearing Under Oath to Have Observed Fraud?

Like Judge Brann in Pennsylvania, Judge Kenny assessed the quality of what was before him as if the Trump Campaign had the usual months of preparation time, when the circumstance demanded they be prepared in only mere weeks. Also, his choice of words in supporting the Michigan State Elections Director’s statements over that of the Trump Campaigns’ sworn affidavits (which include those of the current State Senator, former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, lawyers, and election workers with decades of experience) seemed unnecessarily condescending for an impartial Judge. The Judge wrote:

[The Trump Campaign] rely on numerous affidavits who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities. [Their] conclusions are decidedly contradicted by the highly-respected former State Elections Director…a Detroit City Election Official and City of Detroit Corporation Counsel.

That is a somewhat condescending characterization by the Judge which may be his privilege. However, do his reasons for finding the State Elections Director’s statements more credible than the Trump campaigns make common sense? These are some of the parts of the ruling that stuck out as commonsensically unfair or questionable.

Issue: Election Workers Changing the Dates on Ballots So They Won’t Be Eliminated From the Count

The Judge was keen to overlook even the irregularities admitted to by the State Elections Director that could have swayed the election for Biden (whether innocently or fraudulently). For example, this is what the Judge found regarding elections workers being directed or allowed to fill in missing dates on mail-in ballots (cast largely for Biden), with pre-dating so that they would not be disqualified from being counted:

As to the allegation of “pre-dating” ballots, [the State Elections Director] explains that this action completed a data field inadvertently left blank during the initial absentee ballot verification process.

Isn’t this the very point though: there needs to be an audit done to ascertain and remove from the count, even if it was an innocent “inadvertent” error, how many wrongful Biden ballots were counted in this manner that could have swung the election for him? Isn’t this what Michigan has a duty to its voters to determine in an audit?

Issue: Findings on Credibility of Long Time Election Worker Swearing Under Oath Seem Unfair

The Judge also discounted the Trump Campaigns long time election workers’ sworn affidavit because:

[She] only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan.

The Judge does not say how long before Nov 3 this worker began to notice irregularities, maybe hours, a day or a week, but either way is it fair to discount an affidavit on this basis for someone without the legal knowledge to ascertain what amounts to election fraud as she sifted through in her mind what she was witnessing as the irregularities were increasing; and, make the weighty decision to come forward and make serious allegations in the day or so before the media announced Biden was the winner on November 3?

Issue: The Undisputed Rental Truck Delivering Upwards of 147,000 Ballots (Observed as Being All) for Biden at 4:30 a.m.

The Judge made another finding based on this undisputed evidence: a rental truck with out of state plates delivered [mail-in] ballots at 4:30 am, (admitted by the Elections Director). There were tens of thousands of ballots delivered, and as sworn in an affidavit by a lawyer that was present, “every ballot that he saw after 4:30 AM was cast for former Vice President Biden [emphasis added), the Judge wrote:

[The contention is that] tens of thousands of ballots were brought in to the TCF Center at approximately 4:30 AM on November 4, 2020. A number of ballots speculative on [sic] on [his] part, as is his speculation that all of the ballots delivered were cast for Mr. Biden.

It is not surprising that many of the votes being observed … were votes cast for Mr. Biden in light of the fact that former Vice President Biden received approximately 220,000 more votes than President Trump. (emphasis added)

Commonsensically, there’s a difference between “every” and “many”. If it was “every” ballot, as sworn in the affidavit by a lawyer who was there observing it happen, and not just “many” as the Judge concludes (there’s no indication the Judge had any evidence to support the suggestion it was only “many” and not “every”) that seems like a significant distinction. Also, isn’t it a circular argument to say that the reason there were many votes for Biden was because, there many votes for Biden?  

Also, should a judge not take into account the statistical impossibility that “tens of thousands” of ballots being counted were, every one of them, for one candidate?

The Judge’s reasons for refusing the Trump Campaign’s remedy of an audit before certifying the election results.

The Judge found that, for one, the Trump Campaign had other legal avenues. He wrote:

 “this Court finds that there are [other] legal remedies for [the Trump Campaign] to pursue and there is no harm to [the Trump Campaign] if the injunction [to stop the certifying of Michigan’s electoral college votes until an audit is done to find out of there was fraud] is not granted.”

Isn’t the fact that the electoral college votes will be cast and Joe Biden declared the winner on a potentially fraudulent basis a “harm” to the Trump Campaign and the Trump Michigan voters?

The Judge goes on to effectively argue that secondly there isn’t enough time between now and December 14, 2020 to investigate fraud allegations when Michigan has to cast its electoral votes for either Biden and Trump, and it would risk Michigan missing out on having a say on who is the next President, so, forget the audit.

“There would be harm, however, to [the State of Michigan] if the injunction [for an audit] is granted. Waiting for the Court to locate and appoint an independent, nonpartisan auditor to examine the votes, reach a conclusion and then finally report to the Court would involve untold delay. It would cause delay in establishing the Presidential vote tabulation, as well as all other County and State races. It would also undermine faith in the Electoral System. (emphasis added)

Isn’t the point that Republicans voting for Trump in Michigan voters will be disenfranchised by having their votes effectively discounted by the real possibility their votes were watered down with excessive, fraudulent votes for Biden?

Undermine faith in the Electoral System? Isn’t not having an audit undermining faith in the Electoral System? Is it true there is not enough time, or enough time cannot be made, for an audit for something as important as the Presidential election? One thing is certain, the USA has a reliable method of appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. Keep the faith.