Thank you for the link. I read the entire decision by the judge and also followed up and read a number of newspaper articles on his decision.
My interpretation: The judge seems to be acting as a defense lawyer for Joe Biden. He cites Detroit Democrat election officials as the final word on what happened. The Judge cites zero evidence to dispute the sworn affidavits submitted by the Trump campaign. Basically it's the Democrat election officials word versus the sworn testimony in the affidavits. Neither side can prove their case as judge did not allow a trial and cross examination.
The Judge did not dismiss the case and did not disallow the Trump campaign from seeking further legal remedies. He simply said he would not order an immediate injunction and punted the case to the election board. That's where we are now.
I can understand why the judge punted. He doesn't want to be the sole reason why the Michigan vote is not certified. He said as much. Basically, both sides are in limbo and nothing is proven because the Court will not allow the case to be heard. My final opinion. Inconclusive.
The judge is not acting as a defense lawyer for Biden, especially given Biden isn't even involved in this. There's no reason to doubt the election officials who have given statements under oath. That's the problem with circumstantial evidence, the type of which Jacobs produced, because there are circumstances where the evidence is irrelevant. Such is the case with reporting that they were instructed not to examine signatures at the main center because they were already done at the district level. Now, it's up to the complainants to argue against this point but they do not do so. Yes, the judge did allow for cross examination. The case may not have been dismissed but the motion for injunction was dismissed. Given the time frame involved, these are basically identical. Without an injunction, the Trump campaign has little chance to achieve their desired outcome.