The reporting on the GOP claims about irregularities continues to use inexact language about the affiants. Stories should be VERY rigorous about whether a claim is made by someone who claims to be a "poll challenger" or not. "Poll watchers" are not a thing and should not be used. https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1326676559508463618

For example, here's an example of an affidavit from someone who doesn't claim to be an "challenger." If she's not, then her claims carry even less weight than the "challengers" who were supposed to be trained to look for problems.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20404085-3-exhibit-1-affidavits-compressed

For those who DO claim to have been "challengers," there are a set of questions one should ask before taking their claims credibly, starting with, were you one of the limited number of "challengers" permitted at a precinct. If not, poll workers were right to ignore you.

Here's another person who doesn't claim to have been a formal poll challenger. That's a key detail, bc the person claims to have shown up that morning to be trained, and talks abt response to people w/GOP lanyards, but is not claiming to have worn one.

This person says he was a poll challenger for "Election Integrity Fund," not GOP. They do appear to have been credentialed, but it's worth noting this is the group created to cause havoc.

Here's another person -- whose claims about how people responded to her challenges have gotten a lot of attention -- who doesn't claim to have been a challenger. If she wasn't, her presence there was illegal.

Here's someone complaining he was refused entry. He doesn't claim to have been a poll challenger. If he wasn't, he was rightly refused entry.

Another person complaining about being kicked out who doesn't claim to have been a designated poll challenger. If she wasn't, she had no legal right to be there.

Another person who doesn't claim to have been a poll challenger, complaining that she wasn't allowed within 6 feet of the table. If she wasn't a designated poll challenger, she had no legal right to be in the room, much less within 6 feet of the table.

Another person making a complaint without first establishing that he had a legal basis to be present, much less making a complaint.

Just by way of comparison, this person DOES make it clear he was a challenger and had credentials. His complaints are among those that amount to "did not understand" but at least he had a legal right to be there.

To sum up, this is not an observation about what various swing states call the credentialed people allowed to be behind a table making complaints to poll workers.

It is an observation that JOURNALISTS must first understand what that title is, how it is credentialed, and rules.

If someone signs an affidavit saying they saw blue dogshit on a ballot in a room that only poll challengers were allowed into and she wasn't a poll challenger, the first observation should be that she was there illegally.

A significant portion of affidavits submitted in the lawsuit in MI where official term is "poll challenger" do not claim to have been poll challengers. THAT IN & OF ITSELF IS A STORY. It amounts to a bunch of people signing legal affidavits saying they were in the room illegally.

The way in which Trump's gaslighting works is that he waggles around a document--woo hoo!!!--& people (often Catherine Herridge) report it w/o first asking 1) What is the doc 2) What does it actually say.

That's going on w/the MI lawsuit too, by journos who should know better.

Deleted an earlier tweet that pointed out that this guy is basically complaining that he was rightly denied entry to a room he had no legal right to be in. I inadvertently included his SS# before.