Affidavits and Fraud: A Thread

I see many people on Twitter that, when faced with the proposition that there has been no evidence of election fraud, raise the argument that the witnesses signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury, and ergo they must be telling the truth. This is unequivocally false.

An affidavit is a statement made by someone that, while signed under penalty of perjury, is used as their "initial testimony" before a trial or hearing. It basically works in the same way a deposition transcript does. "This is my outline of events," if you will.

However, affidavits are only as good as the evidence that supports them. I can write literally anything in an affidavit. If I don't have supporting evidence, then my affidavit's strength hinges on my credibility. A witness’s credibility is determined at a hearing or trial.

At that hearing or trial, a lawyer for the plaintiff will put the witness on the stand to testify. They then restate their testimony per the plaintiff's attorney's questions. After they testify, the defense will get to cross-examine them. This is how witnesses are impeached.

So let's say Anne states in her affidavit that the sky is green. She then says in court that the sky is purple. The defense attorney then stands up and points out the inconsistencies in her testimony which impeached her credibility. This is based on FRE 613 and 801(d)(1)(a).

(I'm using the Federal Rules of Evidence but most states have similar rules.) Alternatively, the defense can provide evidence showing that the sky is blue, and that evidence can be used to impeach the witnesses memory, recollection, or ability to tell the truth.

Now, the judge weighs the witness's testimony based on the inconsistencies in her testimony. "This person made contradictory statements, therefore they're not reliable as I don't know which to believe." They can then choose to believe or not believe the testimony.

Alternatively, a witness can sign an affidavit and not provide any other evidence to support their claim. A witness can then be asked on cross if they took photos, videos, or anything else to support their claim. The lack of evidence also reduces their credibility.

A witness can also be asked about bias. Let's say Anne is a die-hard Republican. She voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. She has a motive to fabricate a story, or is biased for Trump. These can also be used to attack credibility.

Affidavits are signed every single day by witnesses. These witnesses often lie. None of them, in my or any of my colleagues' experiences, will ever see the inside of a jail cell, even when we catch them in a lie in court. Perjury's juice is not worth the prosecutorial squeeze.

The fact is that these witnesses have an incentive to lie. None of them provided photos of fraud. Most of them are providing several levels of hearsay wherein they heard A tell B something. Where is A? Where is B? Why aren't they testifying?

Furthermore, have you ever told a secret to a friend and they couldn't keep it without spilling the tea to someone else? That's a small friend group. We're to believe a cabal of Democrats at every level from minimum wage earners to our billionaire overlords all had this national

scheme to defraud the election and not ONE person came out with details or evidence?

Further still, national/international independent watchdog groups found no fraud. CISA found no fraud. DOJ found no fraud. States did recounts which were consistent, and all found no fraud.

Lastly, the claims against Dominion are so defamatory, they're bringing suit against the parties that made the claims of fraud. Seriously. Some red counties used Dominion but somehow there was no fraud in those counties, but blue counties were fraudulent?

Occam's Razor states that often, the simplest conclusion is often the correct one. It makes more sense that more of the country did not like Trump and voted him out than widespread fraud. This election brought out voters in droves because of Trump.

Just my two cents.

@thekoreanvegan please help me get the word out.