@JonasRobert and the pipe burst even if not a big deal precautions still need to be made to secure the ballots, it would be a cya kinda thing in that situation

The pandemic is used as an excuse. Not an excuse when they remove poll observers to 20 feet away from observing and not allowing them to walk about and view the monitor screens. That has occurred in many counties. Very rude partisan treatment.

I watched Dr. Linda Tarver's testimony and I have some concerns about what she said and the implications. Several times she claimed that 72% of Detroit's votes were suspect and that is just not true. 72% of their precincts were out of balance, but she never mentioned that the total number out of balance was only 441 ballots - she had to know this... Her biggest concern seemed to be because there is an obscure law in MI that prevents unbalanced precincts from being audited. When the lone Democrat on the panel asked how long she was concerned about this deficiency in the law, she said it was more than 8 years. And then when he asked her why the Republican controlled MI legislature had never tried to change the law, she deflected saying that the law didn't need to change, because the Dems were just too lazy to make it balance. When she tried to say that other Rep precincts just work harder to be in balance, she neglected to say that those Rep precincts had a fraction of the votes, which made it easier to balance... And she also forgot to mention that there were large Rep precincts that were just as out of balance as Detroit. She also failed to mention the level of effort involved with balancing a large precinct vs. for a small precinct. I do find the law about not being able to audit precincts that are out of balance bothersome, but due to the Reps not willing to change the law, it makes me wonder if something else is at play. All in all, I would have more respect for her testimony if she had been fairer in a representation of the facts.

That is your opinion. Excuse or not. Having them stand at a reasonable distance was not a violation of the law and even judges wrote in their orders it was fine.

It rendered their ability to observe null.

Some terms were changed by the GOP, yes. This isn't what I'm referring to though. The law on poll watchers having access to the ballots were never changed in the statutes, that was an administrative decision which violates the text & spirit of the law. The purpose of having the watchers there is so both sides can verify the validity of absentee ballots. Simply being inside of the room does not accomplish this. Because these absentee ballots were processed without both sides being able to verify the signatues, envelopes, etc, I think they should be thrown out, because they weren't processed according to what the laws require.

(Yes, even with binoculars there’s no way one could accurately observe each ballot.)

yes^^

@JonasRobert that was thrown out of court, poll watchers of both parties were present

I feel like that could be demonstrated really quickly lol. I’m not sure if those votes should be rendered invalid, but... these election officials enforcing this should get some heat.

I disagree. And so did the judges that heard those arguments.

Again, I have noted several times that is was not ideal. But Covid is real. Its not a left hoax. I know people who have died. Many poll workers and volunteers and they have a right to be protected.

Additionally, strictly from a legal standpoint, there is a significant state interest in protecting the health of theirs citizens.

There is no law that establishes the exact number of feet a person is to stand away.

There was no violation of the law.

To attempt to throw out the votes of millions of Americans on the assumption that something wrong happen because people were six fee away instead of two is asinine

The supervisors went against the counties policies for poll observers to do their job and that was to observe to make sure there was integrity. They were not given that opportunity. They were intimidated.

@JonasRobert trumps lawyers admitted this

admitted what?

oh sry I see

See my follow up msg lol

So you say. Ive seen no evidence of that

@JD~Jordan, you just advanced to level 7!

the lawyers admitted they were "present", because they were in the room. That wasn't their argument though. Their argument was they werent allowed to observe the ballots

Lol there is no argument as to why anyone needs to stay more than 6 ft away.

6 feet is even too far. You have to be able to verify each signature

This is done on purpose. An Overload of disinformation countering every story back-and-forth where nobody can keep up

Listen to Fauci. Lol

No clue which one you mean

@JonasRobert https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/exasperated-judges-question-trump-lawyers-on-election-claims-leading-to-one-nonzero-admission

You should look at what the trump team presents in court. Everyone is like they won’t let them present evidence or the judges are biased. This is not the case. Trumps entire legal team quit ( and no not because of threats) it’s because they did not want to be disbarred

Imagine you get carded trying to buy a beer and you try to show your ID from 6 feet away lol

That simply isnt reasonable, you have to be extremely close

Oh, got ya. This one.

I feel like that could be demonstrated really quickly lol. I’m not sure if those votes should be rendered invalid, but... these election officials enforcing this should get some heat.

You should see this to get an idea of what these trump lawsuits are like https://youtu.be/Q_get06-tgo @JonasRobert

put your ID on the counter and move back?

I think he’s saying if you were to hold it up and someone had to read it from 6 ft away.

If you listen to the affidavits testimonies you will be highly surprised by their observation experiences.

I agree... six feet is not ideal. Not suggesting that it is... But its not a violation of the law. Judges ruled on this real time. Team Trump went to court on election day to challenge this... judges said the six foot rule did not violate the statutes.

We were in a pandemic. I mean I dont know what you want me to say... it was not illegal. You cant just kick out an entire polling place because you didnt like the procedure.

Oh yeah... btw... this rule was in place all over the US... anyone complaining about it in states Trump won? No? Shocked.

I agree, disclaimer here, from what I’ve heard there seems to be multiple witnesses to poll watchers being prohibited from watching.

I think it's sad the way that they made fun of that poor guy. It really spoke to the character and attitude of the people taking the video. They saw someone doing their job in plain site of everyone there. I would hate to have to do my work in a fish bowl situation like that. And then to have them dox him and post a video acting like bullies... It's ridiculous. He didn't "palm" a memory card. That guy's life and self esteem are going to be irreparably harmed and all because people assumed that there was fraud happening. Without Trump saying there was going to be fraud, that guy would have just done his job and gone home.

Later on, there is a lady berating people who are trying to do their job and figure out what happened. The fact that they found 2700 votes that should have been processed was a good thing. It was part of the canvassing effort that they combined with the hand recount. The assumption is that there will be fraud - every election worker is suspect. If they take to long on their bathroom break, it must've been fraud.

well here in the UK the usual thing when you need to show some doc/id like in the pharmacy is to put it on the counter

counters have some plastic/plexiglass shields and it's hard to even hear anyway

prohibited from watching what though? the folks outside banging on the glass demanding to be let in?

Yeah, I get that, I just don’t think that was the point of his example.