Video: Pennsylvania election hearing

[trunks2k]

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

And that ruling was later overturned by the PA Supreme Court. Granted, by the time it was overturned, it was largely moot but it cuts off any attempts at using it for a legal argument to stop/overturn the election at the knees.

 

[HIM]

I, like @Hans Blaster also would like to see evidence of the the swearing in process.

Are you serious? It is court proceeding.

What is even funnier is, even though they are sworn in nothing would keep them from lying if that is where their hearts are at. So your want of evidence is wanting to say the least.

 

[trunks2k]

Are you serious? It is court proceeding.

What is even funnier is, even though they are sworn in nothing would keep them from lying if that is where their hearts are at. So your want of evidence is wanting to say the least.

Are you serious?

No, that was NOT a court proceeding. That's what tanj was pointing out by asking to see when they got sworn in. There was nothing official about it. It was a bunch of republicans who got together at a hotel conference room and just started spewing nonsense to each other.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is the most massive election fraud in the history of our nation.

This kind of claim would be very interesting if only anyone making it could provide the slightest shred of evidence that it is true. But alas, that's not the reality we're living in today.

 

[HIM]

Please note what is said at 20:57 in. On this fact alone is enough to prove that there is an issue.

 

[Valletta]

This kind of claim would be very interesting if only anyone making it could provide the slightest shred of evidence that it is true. But alas, that's not the reality we're living in today.

Please tell us what specific election in this country you think had more fraud then this one.

 

[HIM]

Are you serious?

No, that was NOT a court proceeding. That's what tanj was pointing out by asking to see when they got sworn in. There was nothing official about it. It was a bunch of republicans who got together at a hotel conference room and just started spewing nonsense to each other.

Yes. It is a public hearing. There is accountability to what is said. And if you think the point brought in this post is nonsense. You might want rethink your thinking.

 

[trunks2k]

Yes. It is a public hearing. There is accountability to what is said. And if you think the point brought in this post is nonsense. You might want rethink your thinking.

It was a public hearing in that the public could see it. It was NOT a court hearing/proceeding like you said. It was NOT an official government hearing. You don't hold official government hearings in a ballroom at the Wyndham in Gettysburg. There's ZERO accountability here other than making a fool of oneself.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please tell us what specific election in this country you think had more fraud then this one.

Nope, that's not how this works. If you have evidence for your claim feel free to present it. Until you're able to do that, I'll view your empty assertions for what they are.

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes. It is a public hearing. There is accountability to what is said. And if you think the point brought in this post is nonsense. You might want rethink your thinking.

In one post, you went from "court proceeding" (which DOES have swearing in) to "public hearing" (which DOESN'T, as a general rule, have swearing in).

What is nonsense is people who wholly believe the claims but pay no attention to what has actually been put forth in court.

 

[Tanj]

Are you serious? It is court proceeding.

No it isn't, it's a bunch of senators in a hotel listening to the Rudy show. Courts require courtrooms and judges, neither were present.

What is even funnier is, even though they are sworn in nothing would keep them from lying if that is where their hearts are at. So your want of evidence is wanting to say the least.

Yeah, sorry, that isn't the remotest bit funny. The claim was made that they were sworn in, I want to see evidence of such. Also, I actually have a much higher opinion of republican witness than you do.

Also, some friendly advice, it's clear from this post your funny tag on my previous post was intended as derogatory. The mods here take a dim view of that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please note what is said at 20:57 in. On this fact alone is enough to prove that there is an issue.

The speaker (at 20:57) notes the Sec. of State making a change in a rule or guidance about a rule just before the election about something related to the administration of the election. The speaker does *NOT* state what that change was or how it impacted the voting procedure, not to mention how it could have impacted the result.

So what is this earth shattering change and how did it steal the election from our lord and savior, Donald J. Trump?

[Side note: He calls the event a "gathering" not even referring to it as a hearing.]

 

[HIM]

In one post, you went from "court proceeding" (which DOES have swearing in) to "public hearing" (which DOESN'T, as a general rule, have swearing in).

What is nonsense is people who wholly believe the claims but pay no attention to what has actually been put forth in court.

Affidavits were taken. Most of what is being brought forth is backed by affidavits.

 

[HIM]

The speaker (at 20:57) notes the Sec. of State making a change in a rule or guidance about a rule just before the election about something related to the administration of the election. The speaker does *NOT* state what that change was or how it impacted the voting procedure, not to mention how it could have impacted the result.

So what is this earth shattering change and how did it steal the election from our lord and savior, Donald J. Trump?

[Side note: He calls the event a "gathering" not even referring to it as a hearing.]

The simple fact that he broke protocol doesn't matter I guess...

 

[trunks2k]

The simple fact that he broke protocol doesn't matter I guess...

When they had the opportunity to object to the supposed breaking of protocol at the time and failed to do so, then no, it doesn't matter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The simple fact that he broke protocol doesn't matter I guess...

Placing the "Do not campaign" barriers at 50 ft instead of 100 ft (or similar) outside the polling places violates protocol. Should that invalidate the election?

 

[HIM]

Please note what is said at 20:57 in. On this fact alone is enough to prove that there is an issue.

30 minutes in and the above post is the only evidential fact made as of yet.

 

[HIM]

When they had the opportunity to object to the supposed breaking of protocol at the time and failed to do so, then no, it doesn't matter.

So not adhering to the laws that govern our government officials does not matter? Okay?

 

[Vylo]

Hours of nothing. Let it go folks. Trump lost by over 6 million votes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

30 minutes in and the above post is the only evidential fact made as of yet.

30:00 is the middle of a speach by a politician. It ends about 45 seconds later. After some applause the MC announces the introduction of Penn. House and Senate members. I stopped at that point about 31:15 in as I wasn't going to wade through several minutes of self-congratulatory introductions of people I hope to never hear about again.