Hi velletta,
You responded:
Sworn statements under threat of perjury are evidence.
Yes, sworn statements under threat of perjury can be used as evidence. However, the sworn statements have to give evidence of some kind of crime. From what I've heard of the sworn statements that the Trump legal team has, they are fairly vague recollections of seeing something, but they don't really know whether what they saw was criminal.
Things like: I saw a man walking behind the voting booths who I don't think was supposed to be there.
When questioned as to what the man was doing? They don't know. Who was the man? They don't know. How do you know that the man wasn't supposed to be there? They don't know.
They merely saw something that looked suspicious to their untrained eye about a process that they know nothing about.
I believe one alleged that they saw someone burning ballots. When they got to the bottom of it they were practice ballots that the training facility had used to train poll workers and to absolutely ensure that they didn't find their way into the 'official' counting stream...they were burned!
Here on this site there is a thread going around about a picture of a shredding van leaving a vote counting facility a few days after the vote. Ok, did you see any ballots among the trash that was thrown out? They don't know. Do you have any idea what was in the trash? They don't know. They just thought it looked suspicious. People just see something that 'looks' suspicious to them and swear out an affidavit as to what they saw. But when it comes time to find out what it was they saw...well, they really don't know.
The charges that poll observers weren't allowed to observe is patently false. Poll observers were allowed into every single vote counting location. However, there were more poll observers than the room could handle and those excess poll observers were turned back. This happened because the Trump team pretty much called on everyone to be a poll observer and so hundreds of people showed up for a job that was only designed for 20 or so. One Democrat and one Republican poll watcher at each counting table. According to both affidavits of election officials, the 'trump election fraud team' and video evidence in most counting locations where cameras had been installed, there was the allowable number of poll workers at every location. When the 'trump election fraud team' were questioned by a judge as to how many Republican poll workers were actually in a location where they claimed they were being denied access, they answered "more than zero". Now how is that answering the question? The question was 'how many'. It was a disingenuous answer because they knew that if they said that there were 20 or so, they'd again be laughed out of the courtroom. Which they ultimately were anyway.
As to the charge that the poll observers were not close enough to actually read the ballots. There is no legal requirement as to how close a poll observer needs to be. Both Democrat and Republican observers were at the same distance, actually sitting side by side in folding chairs in most instances. It is not the poll observers 'right' to be able to actually read the information on the ballot. That is protected information. What happens if a Republican observer sees that his neighbor voted Democrat? The observers were not cleared to actually be able to read the information on the ballots. This is not fraud, but rather the way the count was supposed to be handled.
Here's a link to educate yourself about the allegations and what they actually allege:
Trump lawsuit affidavits don't show widespread fraud in Michigan
Some allege that ballots were duplicated. Yes they were. It is the standard process for ballots that are difficult to read. It allows certain processes to be made to the ballot to see if it can be made more legible, but preserving the nature of the original ballot in case the 'certain processes' wound up doing more damage to the ballot.
Some alleged that they couldn't read the ballots that were being duplicated to verify the data. First of all, that isn't their job. There are paid poll workers who are tasked with working with troubled ballots. The observers job is just to watch over the process, but not to 'read' the ballot. Again, that's an election privacy requirement. Unless you the voter want to show your ballot to someone, the only people in the elections department that will be reading them are people who have been trained and sworn to secrecy concerning whatever information they may glean from a ballot. A poll worker doesn't get to go around and tell their friends that they saw who so-and-so voted for and neither is a poll observer.
God bless,
ted