How 234 Pages Waived by Kayleigh McEnany Did Not Change the Election in Arizona
Three Arizona court testimonies made it obvious there will be no change in the election outcome
The CNN video clip, shortly after election day, was normal. With a quick pace, CNN’s Brianna Keilar shows how things in America are ridiculous right now. It is best not to take everything she says as fact, but she provides the information in a clear, crisp, and entertaining way.
This particular clip was Kayleigh McEnany talking about evidence. You know, proof that the presidential election was full of fraud, and ironically only in states that her boss lost.
But, wait, she had evidence….right here! In a video clip, McEnany held up a stack of papers and went on to say that she has over 234 pages of evidence of voter fraud. And, and, she announced …these are real people signing real affidavits. The pages in her hand did not look like 234 pages, but that is being too literal.
She did not bother to say how many people they were from, or at least the clip did not include that. I mean, I bet a long-winded individual who just witnessed a daylong of voter fraud could fill up at least a third of those pages, if not more.
But, I guess saying I have 234 pages of real-life signed affidavits from two or three people does not hold the same drama she was trying to convey. Heck, even if the 234 pages were filled with two people to a page, with 5 point font, tons of information from each, and a small notary, I am not sure how 468 real live people are going to help change the results of the election.
So, we can predict or pretend, same difference lately, that there was anywhere between two and 468 real live people telling stories of voter fraud being waived on paper by McEnany.
By luck, and free time at the right moment, I was in the same close proximity as the judge and lawyers with at least one of those real people. I was on a phone call that was hearing the case of alleged voter fraud in Arizona. (Hence, I was as close as the judge and lawyers, since because of COVID everything via the phone, get it?)
Ok, another clarification: I heard three witnesses “on the stand.” They were sworn in, just like Law and Order, so it felt real. During the testimony, I only heard that one person signed an affidavit. All three might have signed an affidavit, but I am a storyteller dedicated to telling the truth, so I cannot simply make up that the other two did. And, heck it would take too much research to find out about the other two.
Oh, another clarification: I usually don’t sit and listen to court hearings. It might not be a bad idea someday, but not now. I happened to “take a lunch” if such a thing exists when you work from home, but as I did, I read an article about the court challenge to the election in the Arizona Republic. The report pointed out that the plaintiffs, who were alleging voter fraud, were not doing so well. They tried to use evidence of videos and photos of the fraud, but were told that it was illegal to film at close proximity of a polling center. They opened a web site for fraud tips, but admitted many posts were fraudulent; they said they did not include those…the judge told them they were not going to use any of them since, um, maybe they were a bit unreliable.
At the end of the article, it gave the call in number to the trial. Anyone can listen. Strange, but intriguing.
With about 30 minutes to take a break, which eventually became 60 minutes, I never imagined I would be able to take on Kayleigh McEnany and challenge her compelling evidence she had as she waved the (probably not) 234 pages on the TV.
When I first entered the call, it was like I was still at work: speakerphone issue, dial-in issue, and “if you don’t hit mute when not speaking, we hear an echo.” In between the phone issues, I heard the evidence.
The first one I heard was a very articulate female. From what I could tell, she was a person who was supposed to monitor a location in the Phoenix metro area on behalf of the Republican Party. Ya, um, I wonder how this will go.
She stated that she worked that afternoon shift only. So, let’s break this down, the afternoon shift, in one location, I get it, we are headed for a massive fraud story here…Anyway, she said she witnessed many situations where a person, a volunteer from the voting area would help a voter. Yes, it sounds indecorous to me.
She told the story of how the volunteers would take the ballot out of the machine after rejection, then look it over with the voter, help them, and then at some point hit a “green” or “red” button. She went on to say that she saw the red button hit on occasion.
The plaintiffs lawyer arguing fraud tried to turn the red and green button into the 2020 version of the ‘hanging chad.” That went away pretty quickly when the witness during cross-examination said she had no idea why the voters were getting help because the closest she could get was six feet from the voter and did not see the errors on the with the green and red button. And, the kicker: She had no idea what the red or green button meant. Worse, she never bothered to ask. Worse, worse, either did the lawyer arguing fraud (or at least say it during the time I was on the call).
Well, McEnany had maybe one or two pages with a “denied” stamp now on it. (Fact check: There was no ruling that denied this testimony, just my opinion. I will get to the overall conclusion in about 500 words or less…look, see, I am waving the words in the air right now, so it must be true).
Now, to the second witness.
This person sounded young. After she indicated it was her first time voting and she voted with her mom and dad, I was pretty confident she was young. I don’t know about you, but if I bring in a witness to argue that this was the worse voter fraud in history, I might want to bring in someone who actually voted in a prior election. It seems like you would want to find someone who will say, “four years ago, I never saw anyone hit the red button, but this year, I saw it hit five times — or something like that.” And not say, “four years ago, I was getting my braces off and getting ready for my junior high winter dance.”
Anyway, this young sounding lady said her ballot was rejected and the kind volunteer helped her fix it. I have to admit, my red and green light hitting testimony could have been mixed up between the two female witnesses, but I think she went on to say she felt red was bad and she didn’t like it. But cross-examination did clarify that she only voted for one name for president, and she thinks her vote counted, but was not sure because of the red light thing. Oh, it was exposed that the volunteer took her ballot and inserted it in the machine for her. I mean, to a Republican this meant fraud; to a Democrat this meant the volunteer was helpful.
All this was really just the side show, a warm-up act to the main event. The third witness was a male. His name was Bones (I think). With my ears, on a speakerphone, and other lawyers and important people, I heard him officially state on the record he swore to tell the truth, etc. And….he signed an affidavit.
Now, again, since this was just a lunch break entertainment, I did not write notes, so there is room for error on this one — but the arguing lawyer, the plaintiff, the one who brought this witness to the court of law …….completely said the wrong name of the witness several times before he was sworn in. His OWN witness. I am sure of that.
The lawyer was saying something like saying Baker when it was Bones. If Bones was the wrong name or the right name, heck, I am not totally sure. But Bones sticks in my head because it was an excellent TV show. Either way, how does the lawyer totally get wrong the name of their own witness? It sure seems evident that hours of witness prep was not going to be an issue for the defense lawyers.
It gets better….Bones said that it was the first time he voted. I don’t know about you, but if I am going to bring in a witness to argue that this was the worse voter fraud in history, I might want to bring in someone who actually voted…..oh shoot….I already used this rant. Sorry, my bad.
Anyway, since the red and green button did not take over the trail and turn into a media headline, they decided to talk about the Sharpie. In another year, if the votes were less than 2,000 apart, perhaps Sharpie-gate would have had a life longer than about 24 hours it had shortly after the election. The headline was about Sharpies that were used at voting locations throughout Arizona and bled through to the other side of the card, which also had ballot picks.
The issue? Um, nothing. Many sources established that before this phone call/hearing…but Bones solidified it when he was crossed examined. He was reminded of how he gave testimony on how he looked at the ballot, I mean real, real close because it was rejected from the machine because one or more selections may be incorrect. The volunteer and he looked to see if he voted twice for someone when it should have been once. Or, the opposite, as sometimes more than one entry per open office is required. I mean he looked real close. So, since he looked so close, he was asked, did you see the sharpie bleed onto the back page and connect with an unintended vote?
I don’t know for sure, but not only did he say no, but pointed out that there was no way this could happen because the front page and back page did not line up. He either said it, or agreed to that, not sure which…time was getting short, lunch was almost over.
Then they talked red and green button again; heck, he could have been the one who said the kind volunteer put the voting card in the machine, not the young lady; or they both did.
The important part came in the exchange about his presidential pick. Bones made no bones about it, he voted for President Donald Trump. He was sure that was his pick. He was convinced that he only picked one candidate for president; he checked it, double-checked it. He was sure the Sharpie did not bleed or mess up his vote for president.
But, but, he wasn’t sure his vote counted. I don’t think green or red was even mentioned, he just did not know if the vote counted. Why? He does not know, he said he got an error message, and he does not trust machines and it just didn’t seem right.
Of course, if I was a cross-examination lawyer for a day, I would state: “Compared to what…it did not seem right… compared to what, this was the very first time you voted?”
And, if I were an investigator for a law firm, like the cool ones on The Good Wife and The Good Fight, I would have been able to find out if the “Bones guy from Queen Creek” had his vote registered as successful.
I voted, I was able to look it up and verify online if I was recorded successfully. This same service online (the machine) is available to those who voted in person in Arizona.
If someone is going to go to court and say they were not sure if their vote was counted because of help from a kind volunteer, a Sharpie, and/or a green light and/or a red light, or geez, a meteor shower that came at the same time he voted and zapped all electronics… wouldn’t someone …shouldn’t someone …nudge him to go online and check, and look for “Your ballot was signature verified and counted — or not”…before going on the stand?
I guess not.
And, don’t forget this was the one witness that between my grilled cheese sandwich and soup, that I can guarantee I heard signed an affidavit saying there was something wrong, really wrong, at the voting station.
Well, I guess that fell apart. Bones could have been on one of the pages McEnany was holding up for the camera. One of the 234 pages of sworn affidavits. Maybe he was more than one page.
If Bones was included, subtract from the 234.
Here is the thing…I can give you an off the cuff, opinion laden, kind of funny, depending on which side you are story you are on (or maybe I am being bipartisan funny)…stuff about his testimony, and the others, but it does not matter.
One day later, Friday, November 13, 2020, the court case was dropped. In short, the plaintiff’s lawyer did not think there was enough cases — or stories of fraud to match the more than 11,000 votes needed to change the winner of Arizona.
Um, ya, and Sharpies bleed through a page. Anything else obvious to report today?
I don’t know how much the three testimonies played a roles in dropping the case, but it sure made for an interesting lunch hour.
