Republican National Committee, Michigan GOP ask state board to delay certifying election results

If they're accepted by said court of law. You should watch a few sovcit video on youtube. You'll see plenty of affidavits being rejected de facto by the courts.

 

An affidavit is admissible evidence
https://www.legalnature.com/guides/...sed#using-an-affidavit-as-admissible-evidence

 

Read your own link.

 

I did. Affidavits are evidence

 

Only if the judge allows it to be.

 

Judge may ask the witness to testify in person and/or have him/her cross-examined. That applies to absolutely all legal evidence, including affidavits.

 

And both can be dismissed by the judge as not being evidence.

 

So what?

There is virtually no penalty for lying on an affidavit, since it is rarely prosecuted.

https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-perjury-so-rarely-prosecuted/

Yup. Affidavits are "evidence".
This guy saw the Roswell Aliens:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Haut

Yup. Take all of that "airtight" affidavit "evidence" to Court.

By the time the smoke clears, Trump will have a 538-0 Sweep.

Sure thing.

 

Judge can indeed dismiss absolutely any evidence, affidavits and witnesses and blood samples and videos and phone recordings and dna evidence etc, it's still evidence which the judge for whatever reason rules inadmissible. You are out of your depth, buddy.

 

Here's the thing about affidavits. You have to determine the quality and reliability of them. How were they obtained? Were they obtained from investigative methods by detectives who corroborates the witnesses statements and whereabouts? From the looks of it, the Trump campaign had people submit affidavits online after they passed a captcha test. Is this really reliable?

 

Are you fine with trump and Guliani and Trump campaign holding press conferences alleging voter fraud while in court saying, "this is not about voter fraud."

 

there are legal consequences to signing an affidavit with false facts. Since you are signing a document under oath, it is the same as testifying in a court of law. If you provide information that is false or lie on the affidavit, you could be fined for perjury. Fines could include monetary fines, community service, and even jail time. The punishment and the severity of the punishment vary from state to state

https://www.legalnature.com/guides/...hey-used#consequences-of-signing-an-affidavit

 

No difference with absolutely any other evidence. All evidence must be properly obtained and its quality and veracity must be determined. Your point was?

 

That's my point. These affidavits are not reliable. They are soliciting them online if they are able to pass a captcha test (e.g. click on traffic lights, starts etc). Affidavits by themselves are not evidence which is why judges re throwing them out.

 

Keep digging.

 

All evidence is inherently not reliable, subject to scrutiny, cross examination, court procedures, legal challenges, expert rebuttals etc.

Affidavits are evidence, they are not any more or less reliable as evidence than a million other pieces of evidence routinely submitted to and accepted by American courts.

PS affidavits are signed under oath, they are legally binding sworn testimonies, not captcha based online fishing expeditions. Duh.

 

As concerns Michigan, all if this is a Moot Point.

Certification today is looking like a 100% Certainty.

 

They absolutely are. People lie. People think they saw something and formed conclusion about what they think happened.

 

Witness testimony is inherently superior to signed statements.

 

Yep, affidavits are exactly the same evidence as witness testimonies in courts under oath taking place daily all over the country.

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. No individual piece of evidence constitutes proof, preponderance of evidence does.

 

you meant legally binding signed under oath affidavits, right? That you had to resort to this cheap distortion speaks volumes... anyway, they are not, the punishment for perjury is identical.... that said they are not mutually exclusive and the signer of the affidavit may and often does testify.

 

Not really because you can't cross examine an affidavit as you can with eyewitness testimony.

 

sure you can, the judge can call the witness and have him cross examined or whatever. Happens all the time, the legal right of the opposing party to challenge any and every piece of evidence is absolutely indisputable.

 

My god. Signed statement = affidavit. Are you confused?

 

If the judge questions a witness, that is testimony, not an affidavit.

Affidavits are useless without supporting evidence.