court for the laugh-out-loud trump lawsuit they brought last november, demanding that michigan should be forced to give their electoral votes to donald trump even though biden won the michigan election. the judge dismissed the actual lawsuit months ago, but now that same judge is deciding whether there ought to be consequences for these lawyers for using her courtroom to push lies and conspiracy theories with only made-up evidence to base it all on. and i say it s made-up evidence because of the judge s ascertainment. the judge called the pieces of evidence they presented for this lawsuit, quote, fantastical and, quote, obviously questionable if not false on their face. in one of the affidavits they tried to submit as part of this case, a poll watcher said he felt the way ballots were being handled was, quote, perplexing. in the hearing on monday, the judge asks the potted plant lawyer, quote, and you think being perplexed by an observation is sufficient enough to get into court? it s
because of the judge s ascertainment. the judge called the pieces of evidence they presented for this lawsuit, quote, fantastical and, quote, obviously questionable if not false on their face. in one of the affidavits they tried to submit as part of this case, a poll watcher said he felt the way ballots were being handled was, quote, perplexing. in the hearing on monday, the judge asks the potted plant lawyer, quote, and you think being perplexed by an observation is sufficient enough to get into court? it s sufficient to support an affidavit? do you feel that that constitutes evidentiary support, sir? the lawyer: absolutely. in this case the judge: wow, okay. the word wow only rarely comes up in trial transcripts and never from the judge. those lawyers could be in some trouble. they could ultimately face disbarment over their actions in that trump case in michigan. but here s something else to watch. tomorrow morning, a whole different slate of pro-trump