Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering exactly how they presented that evidence. Is there a timer to indicate the 90 minutes? Did they physically look at those 570K paper ballots and determine that they were actually marked for Trump instead of Biden, but were counted for Biden? Because we all know that machine votes are backed up by paper ballots. Did they then take that 570K votes in 90 minutes evidence to the PA judge, but he somehow overlooked it? Help me out here.
I do not know how these machines work nor do I know the timing of such, but when the counting stopped on election night the President was leading by approx 700K votes. It is alledged that the huge spikes thereafter were an anomaly, we shall see.
I do not know how these machines work nor do I know the timing of such, but when the counting stopped on election night the President was leading by approx 700K votes. It is alledged that the huge spikes thereafter were an anomaly, we shall see.
The absentee ballots were aggregated into releases. The timing of various precincts, I don't know although there were some where Biden got the vast majority of the mail-in ballots. Or where the so-called spikes came from.
BUT there's nothing particularly odd about the numerical end-result. Trump led with the in-person ballots that were counted first, Biden picked up enough of the mail-in ballots to close the gap. Giuliani asserts - among other items - that more of the Biden mail-in ballots were in fact for Trump. That there was fraud.
Note the NYT comment dated November 4th. "President Trump leads by nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania as of 5 a.m. on Wednesday, and Mr. Biden’s chances depend on whether he can win a large percentage of the more than 1.4 million absentee ballots that remain to be counted."
"So far, Mr. Biden has won absentee voters in Pennsylvania, 78 percent to 21 percent, according to the Secretary of State’s office. The results comport with the findings of pre-election surveys and an analysis of absentee ballot requests, which all indicated that Mr. Biden held an overwhelming lead among absentee voters."
If anything, the pre-election estimates suggest that Mr. Biden might be expected to do better, because the areas with remaining absentee votes are ever so slightly more Democratic than the state as a whole. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/u...s-ballots.html
There's always a possibility for there to be an overlooked memory stick or some ballots that might go missing. No one is saying that there cannot be error. And here Giuliani is right - for there to be enough error to overcome a lead of 80,000 or so there would have to be systematic fraud. With it widespread - for it would have to be somewhat distributed among precincts otherwise it would be glaring, which it is not.
Were any Democratic legislators present to ask questions? Witnesses may have provided affidavits but were they sworn in for their statements today? This sounds more like a political gathering, albeit one attended by bonafide legislators. Rudy did say the "fraud" word.
If that's it I suppose there's nothing that would prevent some legislators from setting up a "special committee meeting." It would be a surprise if the Pennsylvania legislature was in session during T'giving week.
I half-listened for a few minutes while cooking. There was a woman who said the figures she thought erroneous were no longer available. She had seen them on a state-run dashboard (her word) of some kind. This doesn't translate into missing records. No inquiry made to election officials. She just couldn't see what she recalled online anymore. Dunno if that's the same reference.
I think that describes it. I didn't watch it for more than 2 or 3 minutes but someone on Twitter listed the attendees and they were all Republicans. I didn't think they were in session either which is why I went to their website and it was listed as a "majority committee meeting" It's funny how all this 'proof' of fraud isn't available. What got me was that Jenna Ellis and Giuliani were trying to talk the Senators into ignoring the certification and have the Republican assembly pick a slate of new Republican electors. That's not only stupid since they've already certified it's also against PA State law.
I do not know how these machines work nor do I know the timing of such, but when the counting stopped on election night the President was leading by approx 700K votes. It is alledged that the huge spikes thereafter were an anomaly, we shall see.
So you don't have any evidence of what your saying? You just believe that it's true?
It was, in fact, a public hearing in Gettysburg on election fraud.
It was not a trial, but it was a hearing.
It was more like a press conference and presentation of conspiracy theories with no evidence. The pa legislature was not there and this meeting is absolutely irrelevant to anything.
This isn't an investigation. From I can tell, Rudy has no investigative authority and has no access to election records. For that he would need the FBI (or some similar body), although the FBI may be primary here? So far they've declined to become involved. Or so Rudy says.
I believe (and again I wasn't listening that closely) this witness indicated his data came from back-dooring his way into a media databank. Firms like Edison Research work as an interface between preliminary poll totals and the media who then reports it. Others - not necessarily at this session - but in allegations made by Trump attorneys appear to be working from captured media screen shots.
A judge would almost want exhibits entered into a court case authenticated by the representing attorneys.
If they really had evidence they would have presented it to the PA judge already. As it is, Rudy admitted in court that this wasn't a fraud case.
I do not know how these machines work nor do I know the timing of such, but when the counting stopped on election night the President was leading by approx 700K votes. It is alledged that the huge spikes thereafter were an anomaly, we shall see.
I'm just wondering why Rudy didn't present all this evidence to the PA judge when he had the chance. Or why he told the judge that this wasn't a fraud case. Either it was or it wasn't.
I'm just wondering why Rudy didn't present all this evidence to the PA judge when he had the chance. Or why he told the judge that this wasn't a fraud case. Either it was or it wasn't.
His legal strategy is becoming illuminated. He is challenging the results of the PA election count and in doing so he is asking for both a legal strategy (a recount) and if not possible a judgement from the court and also challenging the electors in PA to vote Trump.
His legal strategy is becoming illuminated. He is challenging the results of the PA election count and in doing so he is asking for both a legal strategy (a recount) and if not possible a judgement from the court and also challenging the electors in PA to vote Trump.
Why would he do that when he told the judge he didn't have a fraud case?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
