3 ms·

> The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond ins

> The president’s campaign argued that his supporters weren’t being allowed to monitor the tallying of mail-in ballots, but U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond instead argued the two sides to come to an agreement. Just a note on this; (part of?) the reason Judge Diamond asked the two sides to come to an agreement is because the plaintiffs admitted they already had observers in the room [0]: > During the hearing, a lawyer for the campaign admitted that “they had several representatives in the room,” according to a statement by the bipartisan board. In fact, the Republicans had at least 19 observers in the room during the afternoon, according to the statement. From a Twitter thread with quotes from the hearing livestream [1]: > Diamond: "I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: are people representing the Donald J Trump for president, representing the plaintiffs, in that room?" > Trump campaign lawyer: "Yes." > Diamond: "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?" [0]: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt-philadelphia-count-without-gop-observers-1 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt... [1]: https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1324485343274557443 https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1324485343274557443

mistermann 6y ago
Ok, now this is much more convincing, thank you for posting it. I swear, it's like a significant portion of the media is designed to sow dissent and outrage in society. If the links provided were questionable looking you might think twoice, but Detroit Free Press and CBSLocal at least sound like mainstream publications to me. Although considering the quality of their stories I guess that's not saying much. I honestly think it's highly questionable whether the unique combination of variables the USA has going on is sustainable much longer in this age, I think something's gotta give.
- aw1621107 6y ago
  Yeah, the portrayal in that specific article is... less than ideal.
lol2143651 6y ago
And if you continue the colloquy you'll see the problem is the observers in the room were not allowed within several tens of feet of the ballots being counted, this making observation impossible. Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer.
- aw1621107 6y ago
  > And if you continue the colloquy you'll see the problem is the observers in the room were not allowed within several tens of feet of the ballots being counted, this making observation impossible. So assuming the motion linked at the top of the Twitter thread is the one the hearing is about, what you say does not appear to be completely correct. The complaint in the original motion is that the County Board of Elections is "intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party," and that "It has been studying the Order [to allow representatives/poll watchers to observe canvassing] for over an hour and a half, while counting continues with no Republicans present." Assuming the Twitter thread is correct, the bits of the conversation I quoted show that the problems in the original motion do not, in fact, exist (as of the time of the hearing, at least), and that observation distance was a separate issue brought up during the hearing. > Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer. This is actually a ruling from a different case (emphasis mine): > Earlier on Thursday, a Pennsylvania state court judge ruled that observers could stand as close as 6 feet (2 meters) away while election officials counted mail-in and absentee ballots. The case the article/Twitter thread I linked was in a US District Court.

mistermann 6y ago

Ok, now this is much more convincing, thank you for posting it. I swear, it's like a significant portion of the media is designed to sow dissent and outrage in society. If the links provided were questionable looking you might think twoice, but Detroit Free Press and CBSLocal at least sound like mainstream publications to me. Although considering the quality of their stories I guess that's not saying much. I honestly think it's highly questionable whether the unique combination of variables the USA has going on is sustainable much longer in this age, I think something's gotta give.

aw1621107 6y ago
Yeah, the portrayal in that specific article is... less than ideal.

lol2143651 6y ago

And if you continue the colloquy you'll see the problem is the observers in the room were not allowed within several tens of feet of the ballots being counted, this making observation impossible. Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer.

aw1621107 6y ago
> And if you continue the colloquy you'll see the problem is the observers in the room were not allowed within several tens of feet of the ballots being counted, this making observation impossible. So assuming the motion linked at the top of the Twitter thread is the one the hearing is about, what you say does not appear to be completely correct. The complaint in the original motion is that the County Board of Elections is "intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party," and that "It has been studying the Order [to allow representatives/poll watchers to observe canvassing] for over an hour and a half, while counting continues with no Republicans present." Assuming the Twitter thread is correct, the bits of the conversation I quoted show that the problems in the original motion do not, in fact, exist (as of the time of the hearing, at least), and that observation distance was a separate issue brought up during the hearing. > Hence why the judge ruled to allow observers closer. This is actually a ruling from a different case (emphasis mine): > Earlier on Thursday, a Pennsylvania state court judge ruled that observers could stand as close as 6 feet (2 meters) away while election officials counted mail-in and absentee ballots. The case the article/Twitter thread I linked was in a US District Court.