Trump campaign drops claim of blocked poll observers from PA lawsuit
GOP election officials confirmed they were allowed to monitor the process — and they denied any irregularities
www.salon.com
You're bad at this.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
www.salon.com
You're bad at this.
This is old news, we already went over this. Amending and striking claims from the lawsuit does not mean that those claims are false.Trump campaign drops claim of blocked poll observers from PA lawsuit
GOP election officials confirmed they were allowed to monitor the process — and they denied any irregularities
You're bad at this.
You're really bad at this.
Not even the Republicans are saying this anymore, it's just you and your fantasy view of reality. Everyone else, including the Republicans, admit that the Republicans could watch and didn't notice any irregularities.
Wasn't the legalese something like a "None-zero number" of Republican poll watchers, or some such nonsense?
I'm sure. I'm sure it was strategically used to say there are still doubts when what happened was when it came to crunch time, they couldn't find a watcher who would testify to it (which is to say it wasn't even remotely a problem).
I heard several people say that during that "hearing" in PA this week.
Including this guy:
Go watch the hearing, it's just witness after witness.
No, come back when it's actually a hearing, preferably in a court room. Because when it's the threat of perjury, the accusations disappear.
Seriously do you do any research on anything?
Overblown Claims of 'Bad Things' at Philly Polls - FactCheck.org
A story circulating on social media deceptively claims "Bad Things Are Happening in PA." It overstates the significance of a video that shows a Republican poll watcher being denied access to a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day, and it falsely claims that there was an illegal political...
www.factcheck.org
To quote directly from the article:
“He was denied entry, at least initially,” Kevin Feeley, spokesman for the city commissioners, told FactCheck.org in a phone interview. “Honestly, it was a mistake.”
The poll worker who initially rejected Feldman was under the impression that the ward number on the poll watcher’s certificate had to match the polling location, Feeley explained.
In the video, Feldman tells two poll workers, “I have a citywide watcher’s certificate.” One of the poll workers responds, “It’s not for this location.”
But, according to Philadelphia County’s guide for election officials, “Watchers are only permitted to be issued one Certificate for one Election District, but are permitted to use that Certificate to watch in ANY Ward/Division in Philadelphia.”
Both Feeley and Jane Roh, spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the rule had recently been changed, but neither specified when.
The DA’s office “contacted the workers there to make sure they were clear on the rules,” Roh said by email."
So it was A. a misunderstanding on certificate rules, B. cleared up, and C. Feldman was later allowed to return to the same location and got the information he was looking for.
Damnit, Pony, don't you know?! The Republicans can never suffer a mistake. There's NO SUCH THING when it comes to a mistake when it comes to Republican! Everything is an intentional action slated against their political leanings! That's why they cultivated the preponderance of Karens to safeguard morality.Seriously do you do any research on anything?
Overblown Claims of 'Bad Things' at Philly Polls - FactCheck.org
A story circulating on social media deceptively claims "Bad Things Are Happening in PA." It overstates the significance of a video that shows a Republican poll watcher being denied access to a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day, and it falsely claims that there was an illegal political...
To quote directly from the article:
“He was denied entry, at least initially,” Kevin Feeley, spokesman for the city commissioners, told FactCheck.org in a phone interview. “Honestly, it was a mistake.”
The poll worker who initially rejected Feldman was under the impression that the ward number on the poll watcher’s certificate had to match the polling location, Feeley explained.
In the video, Feldman tells two poll workers, “I have a citywide watcher’s certificate.” One of the poll workers responds, “It’s not for this location.”
But, according to Philadelphia County’s guide for election officials, “Watchers are only permitted to be issued one Certificate for one Election District, but are permitted to use that Certificate to watch in ANY Ward/Division in Philadelphia.”
Both Feeley and Jane Roh, spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the rule had recently been changed, but neither specified when.
The DA’s office “contacted the workers there to make sure they were clear on the rules,” Roh said by email."
So it was A. a misunderstanding on certificate rules, B. cleared up, and C. Feldman was later allowed to return to the same location and got the information he was looking for.
I think you owe Republicans an apology for not realizing everything needs to be perfect for them. You should know better by now...
Yes, they "misunderstood", and barred him entry, then realized their "mistake" long after he was gone. He never came back to that location. The words "initially" in that article are misleading. There was no "initially". They barred him from the premises. Full stop. Realizing their mistake later is irrelevant.
That's like saying you "initially" robbed a store, or "initially" murdered someone.
Last edited:
Sure. For the Trump campaign lawyer admitting in court that Republican poll-watchers were present, see here.
For the failure to present evidence for a motion which legally requires it, see here. We also have judges referring to lawsuits as having "no evidence", or calling them "hearsay".
For state officials, including Republicans, attesting the rules were followed as usual, see here and here.
Sydney "Hugo Chavez helped steal the election" Powell. Man you're still bringing her up? Haha I love you man.
Nobody ever claimed that there were ZERO republican poll-watchers or ballot observers.
They claim is that they were A) pushed out of the building at one location and had to get a court to order the location to let them in, which they did, but they kept them in a corral at such a distance that they couldn't see anything, and B) at other locations, they were kept at such a distance that they couldn't see anything.
And also the stuff from the images above.
That says " The campaign wants a delay in certification (which can come as early as Monday so that it could try to find evidence). "
So of course they didn't bring evidence.
Where are their affidavits?
Also, the claim isn't that the rules weren't being followed, the claim is that the observers can't actually observe anything. For example, having 1 observer for every 10 tables, or having observers be 6 feet away behind a plastic shield, might be allowed by the rules, but it functionally prevents oversight.
The claim is that we used the same system that helped Hugo Chavez steal his election.
Last edited:
---
2 States, Pennsylvania and Michigan, that voted blue in 6 of the last 7 elections returning to blue is surprising? The only rational explanation for that is voter fraud on a large scale that has never happened in the history of US elections? Whereas Georgia voting blue is surprising as the last time they did was the 1992 election yet a hand recount has shown no fraud.
It wouldn't, because the evidence of fraud is in the signatures, and we have plenty of affidavits testifying that the signatures were never verified by both parties.
Actually, that's precisely what Trump has claimed.
Donald Trump said:
Donald Trump said:
Donald Trump said:
Uhrm, yeah, you'll need evidence to delay certification. Why would they grant it on the basis of pure speculation? That's not how the legal process works; they don't just delay certification while you get the shit you need. This is precisely why the request was rejected.
Uhrm... an affidavit would only be required if the case actually got somewhere. But 22 have been thrown out, and none have made it any further. Why would they gather counter-affidavits for a claim that can just be immediately dismissed for lack of evidence?
Are you just suggesting now that hundreds of Republican state officials are also in on the conspiracy to deny Trump the White House?
" THEY WOULD’NT [sic] LET REPUBLICAN POLL WATCHERS INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! "
For that statement to be true, all they need is at least two republican watchers, to satisfy the plural, to be denied access into the counting rooms, and I'm pretty sure that's true. If they turned away Gary, they probably turned away others before they "realized their mistake".
This statement isn't the same as "They wouldn't let any republican poll watchers into the counting rooms".
So no affidavits, got it.
Also, certification is currently halted in PA pending a case on Friday, despite your claim that THERE NO EVIDENCE, so there's that.
Last edited:
- Status