Hearsay on Hearsay
By 
When Trumpworld’s claims that there is Widespread Voter Fraud actually have to be presented in a court of law, the results are deeply, deeply hilarious:
Since the Trump campaign just issued a press release about the "integrity of the election process," here's a reminder of what happened when they brought that claim to a federal court yesterday: https://t.co/otS8cHmlIn— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) November 6, 2020
Filing: “The Board of Elecitons is intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party.”
Lawyer in open court: “There’s a non-zero number of people.”
I am also guessing that “I am asking you as a member of the bar of this court” is not a phrase you ever want to hear a judge say to you.
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.
[…]
The day after her ruling from the bench, Judge Stephens issued a written opinion slamming the Trump campaign’s case as based on “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”
The double-hearsay in question came from Jessica Connarn, a designated poll watcher whose affidavit the campaign included to bolster its arguments, but her sworn testimony about scuttlebutt from an unidentified person failed to impress the judge.
“The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence,” Connarn wrote.
The campaign’s counsel noted that the mystery poll watcher who interacted with Connarn supposedly handed her a note to support the tale, but this too fell far short of a smoking gun.
“The note—which is vague and equivocal—is likewise hearsay,” the ruling states. “And again, plaintiffs have not presented an argument as to why the Court could consider the same, given the general prohibitions against hearsay evidence.”
Personal to prospective Trump lawyers: make sure to get your retainer up front in cash, and also make sure your insurance and preferably real estate license are up to date.
Speaking of falangists in the conservative legal world, I see the competition for “most disreputable member of the Harvard Law faculty” remains fierce:
A sampling of the disinformation that Harvard Law Prof. Adrian Vermeule promoted over the last few days 👇 https://t.co/HOTynh9V4z— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) November 6, 2020