Georgia Senate committee hearing

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thanks for the sermon. You and Terry are wrong. The video is a smoking gun of election fraud by breaking the law. They are not supposed to count without observers.
The video may not prove they are adding illegal ballots but it sure seems suspicious that they would break the law to secretly submit them.

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thanks for the sermon. You and Terry are wrong. The video is a smoking gun of election fraud by breaking the law. They are not supposed to count without observers.
The video may not prove they are adding illegal ballots but it sure seems suspicious that they would break the law to secretly submit them.

Do you realize that there were two state officials on site at the time of the video, one from the Elections Commission and one from the Secretary of State's office?

I fear y'all have fallen for another one of the long line of Rudy G. bumbles. The matter has already been resolved in court on 11/20/20, and by a direct investigation of the SoS.

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
You are FOS! You can obviously see an urgency to the activity that goes on after everyone else is told to go home. The action of counting unsupervised by observers, in itself, is against the law. Do you deny that?

The secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

Denied!

link supplied by carewemust

a reply to: Gryphon66

do you realize they are dirty birds and in on the joke?

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thanks for the sermon. You and Terry are wrong. The video is a smoking gun of election fraud by breaking the law. They are not supposed to count without observers.
The video may not prove they are adding illegal ballots but it sure seems suspicious that they would break the law to secretly submit them.

This video is electoral business as usual.
There were witnesses there (this wasn't happening unsupervised).
The boxes are exactly like the boxes the rest of the ballots were in.
These boxes were unsealed in front of the press and unsealed ballots need to be scanned before they finish for the night.


So no, nothing to see.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thanks for the sermon. You and Terry are wrong. The video is a smoking gun of election fraud by breaking the law. They are not supposed to count without observers.
The video may not prove they are adding illegal ballots but it sure seems suspicious that they would break the law to secretly submit them.

This video is electoral business as usual.
There were witnesses there (this wasn't happening unsupervised).
The boxes are exactly like the boxes the rest of the ballots were in.
These boxes were unsealed in front of the press and unsealed ballots need to be scanned before they finish for the night.


So no, nothing to see.

So says the GA SEC OF STATE who i s TAKING MONEY for CHEATING and who INVESTIGATES THEMSELVES,and then DECLARES NO WRONG DOING to COVER HIS ARSE.(caps for emphasis)

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Thanks for the sermon. You and Terry are wrong. The video is a smoking gun of election fraud by breaking the law. They are not supposed to count without observers.
The video may not prove they are adding illegal ballots but it sure seems suspicious that they would break the law to secretly submit them.

This video is electoral business as usual.
There were witnesses there (this wasn't happening unsupervised).
The boxes are exactly like the boxes the rest of the ballots were in.
These boxes were unsealed in front of the press and unsealed ballots need to be scanned before they finish for the night.


So no, nothing to see.

So says the GA SEC OF STATE who i s TAKING MONEY for CHEATING and who INVESTIGATES THEMSELVES,and then DECLARES NO WRONG DOING to COVER HIS ARSE.(caps for emphasis)

Why aren't you testifying in Gulliani's carnival hearings? You sure do seem to know about a lot of illegal happenings and going-ons. Seems like exactly the sort of invaluable testimony Gulliani is looking for!

a reply to: Turkenstein

Sorry, I don't know FOS. Maybe you saw urgency, I didn't. I saw activity after most left. I don't know that what I saw was unsupervised counting. And no, I do not deny that unsupervised counting is against the law.

a reply to: interupt42

Indeed. Let's have further investigation. Let's get that supervisor back and those workers sworn in to a court of law and get the truth from them, not just speculate on what we could see from those videos. I'm all for that.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then I guess you would not be accepted for any jury on this issue.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Turkenstein

Sorry, I don't know FOS. Maybe you saw urgency, I didn't. I saw activity after most left. I don't know that what I saw was unsupervised counting. And no, I do not deny that unsupervised counting is against the law.

It isn't though...

Section § 21-2-408 of the Code Of Georgia, which addresses poll watchers, explains that political bodies and parties are "entitled" to have official poll watchers. The secretary of state's chief counsel told Lead Stories it was not a requirement that observers be present for counting to continue -- only that it is their right to be there is they choose.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: interupt42

Indeed. Let's have further investigation. Let's get that supervisor back and those workers sworn in to a court of law and get the truth from them, not just speculate on what we could see from those videos. I'm all for that.

Have a look at the link carewemust shared.

It explains a lot.

a reply to: djz3ro

OH, well thanks for that. So it could be that counting did continue when that first shift left and it would be legal. Just as the poll watchers could have remained. We don't even know at this point if they were told to leave or if they were offered to leave. Seems a whole lot of supposition is all we have at this point.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Pretty much. It could be something if observers were told it was over but accounts seem to disagree with that Affidavit.

a reply to: djz3ro
Are these account also sworn under oath, or nah?

a reply to: djz3ro

Well now, there we have it, much as I suspected. Those workers that left had specific duties that were no longer needed at that point. I surmised that it was a shift change of sorts as it was only three hours until the next group of people and watchers arrived.

The real problem here is not the accusations of fraud but rather those who will continue to believe them in the face of true testimony. Belief in false conspiracies demands that one must include in that conspiracy or at least deem them fools, anyone who offers evidence against it's validity.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: djz3ro
Are these account also sworn under oath, or nah?

Neither are those who say this is illegal

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sadly that is where we're at. Somehow the fact I'm Scottish makes this information wrong in some eyes.