On Tuesday night, Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, appeared on Fox News addressing the question of proof of fraud. “We keep hearing the drum beat of where is the evidence,” Ms. McEnany said, holding up a thick stack of documents. The documents, she claimed, were more than 200 pages of “sworn affidavits from real people” about to be filed in yet another case.
That case was filed on Wednesday in a federal court in Michigan and closely mirrored Mr. Kallman’s state court case. But while the Trump campaign had promised “shocking” evidence of misconduct in Detroit, the affidavits Ms. McEnany touted turned out to be largely a grab bag of complaints by Republican poll watchers who felt uncomfortable in Detroit or who said local elections officials had treated them unkindly.
One poll watcher, for example, claimed that workers in Detroit were wearing clothes with Black Lives Matter logos. Another claimed that the public address system the poll workers were using was “distracting.”
A third poll watcher seemed not to like the looks that she was getting. “I felt intimidated by union people who were staring at me,” she said.
Perhaps the strangest — and the least founded — suit so far was filed on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Williamsport, Pa. The suit was brought by four ordinary citizens — a farmer, a retired pastor, a nurse anesthetist and a corrections officer — who accused state elections officials of cheating during the vote count in several Pennsylvania counties.
Claiming “sufficient evidence” to place in doubt the results of the election, the suit essentially rehashed several arguments that had already been made in previous suits in Pennsylvania. The lawyers who filed it, however, promised something new: to hire an expert who would prove precisely how many “illegal ballots” had been cast through a “sophisticated and groundbreaking” data analysis program.
Lawyers for the state of Pennsylvania immediately ridiculed the idea.
In court papers filed on Wednesday, they dismissed the suit as a group of “unsubstantiated stacked hearsay allegations,” saying it was founded on a “hope that their unidentified expert will analyze data they do not have.”