Video: Pennsylvania election hearing

[Kenny'sID]

One of the first is that postal voting always leads to ‘massive fraud’, wherever it is used. As you can easily find out, this is not true.

I dont need to look at a thing to, at least off the cuff, think he got a little overzealous with his wording there, so?

Does his poor choice of wording mean to you there is no substantial fraud?

 

[Tom 1]

I dont need to look at a thing to, at least off the cuff, think he got a little overzealous with his wording there, so?

Does his poor choice of wording mean to you there is no substantial fraud?

Lol you’re not going to give me a direct answer, right?

That’s one of the first allegations, it’s not a slip of the tongue. He states his view quite clearly and not only is it entirely untrue that postal voting leads to ‘massive fraud wherever it is used’ what actual, real-world reason do you have that it leads to any level of fraud, anywhere? The only instance anyone has provided so far of anything like a major incident of fraud happened nearly 50 years ago on an island known for being dominated by a small number of people with vested interests. Do you think the link he makes between postal voting and fraud is legitimate, or not? If you do, what are your reasons? Please answer this, then we can move on to another allegation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Answering questions rather than dissembling, avoiding and going off on tangents.

See, as far as I know I avoid nothing, and the tangents, no idea whst you mean.

It seems unlikely you'll be pleased with my silly games, or whatever your problem is, and I do believe that may be the case....your problem.

Be sure to tell me when my actions displease you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lol you’re not going to give me a direct answer, right?

The answer was 100% direct. What would you consider direct?

See what I mean, the problem is your expectations, not me.

 

[Tom 1]

See, as far as I know I avoid nothing, and the tangents, no idea whst you mean.

It seems unlikely you'll be pleased with my silly games, or whatever your problem is, and I do believe that may be the case....your problem.

Be sure to tell me when my actions displease you.

How about a direct answer? I think you’d agree that no-one likes to have their time wasted. You asked me a question, I responded, now you’re just beating around the bush.

 

[Tom 1]

The answer was 100% direct. What would you consider direct?

See what I mean, the problem is yiur expectations, not me.

Do you think his claim that postal voting leads to widespread fraud wherever it is used is accurate, or not? This is a yes or no question, yes I do or no I don’t would be direct answers.

If you think it is an accurate claim, what are your reasons for thinking so? Here a direct answer would include your reasons for thinking so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Answering questions rather than dissembling, avoiding and going off on tangents. Why do I believe postal voting doesn’t result in ‘massive fraud wherever it is used’ - is that what you mean - ? Because it doesn’t. There is no reason to believe that it does - ? Postal voting is a regular occurrence in many countries and there is quite literally no reason at all to think that it leads to massive fraud.

The questions were simple, why not answer them? What did you mean by those two accusations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But, to give you a chance to prove me wrong, the first guy to speak lies through his teeth for about 10 minutes. Here’s your homework - he claims around 38 minutes in to the vid that mail in voting has led to massive fraud wherever it has been used.

I went to check that segment. I started early enough to see if the witness was sworn as one of the "lawyers" was talking. It turns out what Tom witnessed was Rudy Giuliani (a lawyer of sorts, center of frame back of head to camera) telling fanciful tales about the horrors of mail-in voting for 10+ minutes. I didn't watch much of it because I was skipping to get to the actual witness. At least some of it was rambling about the timing of counting results on election night. Sigh.

It wasn't your fault, Tom, that you misidentified a has been politician (who had ambitions to be a Senator from New York and maybe even president) who now is one of the main spinners of nonsense for Trump on this "election steal" nonsense as a real witness.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How about a direct answer? I think you’d agree that no-one likes to have their time wasted. You asked me a question, I responded, now you’re just beating around the bush.

Yes, you responed by clearly not answering the questions. lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

Lol you’re not going to give me a direct answer, right?

That’s one of the first allegations, it’s not a slip of the tongue. He states his view quite clearly and not only is it entirely untrue that postal voting leads to ‘massive fraud wherever it is used’ what actual, real-world reason do you have that it leads to any level of fraud, anywhere? The only instance anyone has provided so far of anything like a major incident of fraud happened nearly 50 years ago on an island known for being dominated by a small number of people with vested interests. Do you think the link he makes between postal voting and fraud is legitimate, or not? If you do, what are your reasons? Please answer this, then we can move on to another allegation.

Calm down, and stop doing exactly, and I mean exactly what you accused him of doing and telleing me I said it was a slip of the tongue when I clearly said it was a bad choce of words, two completely different things...meaning, if you havent figured out as of yet, I basically said he should not have said that.

You made accusstions of the man lying, then you turn right around and do it yourself. Plus you are extremly high strung and so ready to pounce you end up hurting yourself.

I think you need some me time.....maybe later.

 

[whatbogsends]

This is the most massive election fraud in the history of our nation. Every American should be outraged.
I would bet you didn't bother to view the hearings.

Trump was claiming fraud before a single ballot was cast. He was claiming fraud in the run-up to 2016.

Alleging fraud and attempting to delegitimize the election in the event of a loss was a planned strategy.

No "massive election fraud" has been shown to date.

 

[Tom 1]

Calm down, and stop doing exactly, and I mean exactly what you accused him of doing and telleing me I said it was a slip of the tongue when I clearly said it was a bad choce of words, two completely different things...meaning, if you havent figured out as of yet, I basically said he should not have said that.

You made accusstions of the man lying, then you turn right around and do it yourself. Plus you are extremly high strung and so ready to pounce you end up hurting yourself.

I think you need some me time.....maybe later.

Uh what? What question are you talking about? A claim is made of massive election fraud in all cases of postal voting. Do you agree this is something that has ever happened? If you do agree, why/where etc. What is it you don’t understand about that question?

 

[Tom 1]

, I basically said he should not have said that.

Ok, nearly there. So you agree his statement that postal voting always leads to ‘massive fraud’ is entirely false -yes/no. The evidence shows quite the opposite, that postal voting almost never leads to any level of fraud. You have to go back decades to find anything resembling a major case of postal fraud anywhere in the world; do you agree, yes/no? If not, why not?

 

[Tom 1]

The questions were simple, why not answer them? What did you mean by those two accusations?

Please explain what you are talking about. Do you mean something like why is there no evidence of something not happening?

 

[Valletta]

Trump was claiming fraud before a single ballot was cast. He was claiming fraud in the run-up to 2016.

Alleging fraud and attempting to delegitimize the election in the event of a loss was a planned strategy.

No "massive election fraud" has been shown to date.

You probably haven't read depositions or listened to hearings. The numbers are staggering as are the actions of Democrat thugs, who de-legitimized the election when they illegally blocked access by observers and manipulated the counts, and allowed votes without proper identification. We now are in a crisis because of these individuals and because too many good people remaining silent. Way too few Democrats have come forward, but there have been some, God Bless them. If you want a legitimate election follow the recommendations of the President Carter/Baker commission. It did become obvious in the months before the election that Democrats in individual states were setting up rules the exact opposite of the commission recommendations.

 

[Gene2memE]

You probably haven't read depositions or listened to hearings.

I have. I've read more than 200 pages of affidavits in the last ~15 days.

The numbers are staggering

Sure. But numbers don't matter when determining the truth of a proposition. A million horses don't make up for one unicorn.

as are the actions of Democrat thugs,

Nice

who de-legitimized the election when they illegally blocked access by observers

A single court cases about observer access has been successful. The result was reducing the minimum observation distance from 10 to six feet.

and manipulated the counts,

Who, specifically, manipulated which courts.

and allowed votes without proper identification.

So far, none of the judges have accepted that this occurred.

We now are in a crisis because of these individuals and because too many good people remaining silent. Way too few Democrats have come forward, but there have been some, God Bless them.

Which Democrats have come forward, about what? Be specific.

If you want a legitimate election follow the recommendations of the President Carter/Baker commission.

You mean this commission?:

"The Carter-Baker Commission found that where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place – for example in Oregon, where the entire state has voted by mail since 1998 – there was little evidence of voter fraud. The commission’s main recommendations on vote-by-mail and absentee voting were to increase research on vote-by-mail (and early voting) and to eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots.​

It did become obvious in the months before the election that Democrats in individual states were setting up rules the exact opposite of the commission recommendations.

Which recommendations, specifically, were acted against?

Here's the recommendations: Wayback Machine

 

[Valletta]

Ok, nearly there. So you agree his statement that postal voting always leads to ‘massive fraud’ is entirely false -yes/no. The evidence shows quite the opposite, that postal voting almost never leads to any level of fraud. You have to go back decades to find anything resembling a major case of postal fraud anywhere in the world; do you agree, yes/no? If not, why not?

Back in 2005 the commission co-chaired by President Jimmy Carter and Baker concluded: "Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Just this month there were 70,000 uncounted ballots in Pennsylvania spotted in a back room.

 

[Tom 1]

Just this month there were 70,000 uncounted ballots in Pennsylvania spotted in a back room.

Why do you think this is real?

Please provide a single example of actual fraud, not hearsay or something someone thinks was 'not right' for some unspecified reason.

The White House released detailed info on actual cases of fraud, involving any kind of fraudulent activity relating to any kind of voting, not just postal voting. Over several decades there have been a little over 1,000 cases, involving small numbers of votes. This is evidence, these are things that actually happened. That is the limit of evidence offered.

Do you have something else? What would be a case other than those mentioned in which actual fraud was committed? Do you have a reason for taking a collection of allegations without evidence to be the same thing as actual evidence? If so, why?

 

[Valletta]

Why do you think this is real?

Please provide a single example of actual fraud, not hearsay or something someone thinks was 'not right' for some unspecified reason.

The White House released detailed info on actual cases of fraud, involving any kind of fraudulent activity relating to any kind of voting, not just postal voting. Over several decades there have been a little over 1,000 cases, involving small numbers of votes. This is evidence, these are things that actually happened. That is the limit of evidence offered.

Do you have something else? What would be a case other than those mentioned in which actual fraud was committed? Do you have a reason for taking a collection of allegations without evidence to be the same thing as actual evidence? If so, why?

First, your opinion of the "limit of evidence" in past years has absolutely nothing to do with what happened this year. Second, you claim that I took a "collection of allegations without evidence." To the contrary, I have cited evidence. A sworn affidavit is evidence, not proof, but evidence.

 

[Arc F1]

Trump was claiming fraud before a single ballot was cast. He was claiming fraud in the run-up to 2016.

Alleging fraud and attempting to delegitimize the election in the event of a loss was a planned strategy.

No "massive election fraud" has been shown to date.

I thought it was funny after the last election.

Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was 'Rigged'