Yeah, photos and videos taken by observers of the count - seriously, you realize Trump's lawyers admitted in court they had observers in place since the start of counting on election day, right?

You realize that a court has already ruled that poll watchers where deigned meaningful access, right?

No they didn't - the court ruled that poll watchers could sit closer to the counters because the 25 feet afforded by law was too far. The poll watchers were then moved up to 6 feet away from the counters.

That's literally the only case the Trump campaign can pretend to have won, and even then they just bitched about the fact that they were still too far away - apparently misunderstanding their role (to watch counters, not see individual ballots) entirely.

So no, but really yes.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7731/file-10388.pdf?cb=a977a7
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7742/file-10390.pdf?cb=e10fab

Neither of those show anyone was denied meaningful access, and again that's because the Trump lawyers admitted to the judges their campaign observers had been observing since the count began.

They do show the move to 6 feet, so Yes and really Yes.

You didn't read the opinion did you.

Yes, both when it came out and after you posted it here just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Perhaps you'd like to spell out what you erroneously believe it says instead of just lobbing single-sentence responses and links that clearly disprove your premise?

Sorry, I didn't get the right ruling with that, and it took some time to find. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7731/file-10384.pdf?cb=efaf27

The ruling is on page 26 and a summery on 16. Basically the room was set up in a way where you couldn't actually observe what was going on.

Page 26 isn't the ruling - it's the end of the Trump Campaign's petition to the court. You can tell this because it's signed by the counsel on the following page.

The ruling is found 4 pages below that, and it reads:

"The oral motion to allow closer observation of the canvassing of ballots is DENIED for the following reasons:

The Petitioner's witness provided copious testimony as to his ability to observe the opening and sorting of ballots. His concerns pertained to his inability to observe the writing on the outside of the ballots. Given that observers are directed only to observe and not to audit ballots, we conclude, based on the witness's testimony, that the Board of Elections has complied with the observation requirements under 25 P.S. 3146.8. We, however, would not discourage the Board from considering the implementation of arrangements to allow for an additional corridor for observation along the side of the canvassing tables if feasible - subject to spatial distancing under COVID-19 and voting privacy requirements."

Sorry, these things are hard to read. And that that you just posted is the appealed case, and not the appellate court's ruling.

Yes - that's what I described in the second post in this thread.

They were placed 25 feet away, took it to court, were granted 6 feet away.

They went back to court saying they couldn't read the envelopes and ballots from 6 feet away, and were denied relief because their job didn't require them to.

Neither case demonstrated a denial of meaningful access.

And since you seem to have missed it:

Judge Paul Diamond: “Are your observers in the counting room?”

Trump's lawyer: “There’s a non-zero number of people in the room,”

Judge: “I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this court: Are people representing the Donald J. Trump for President [campaign], representing the plaintiffs, in that room?”

Trump's lawyer: “Yes."

"They were placed 25 feet away" factually incorrect. That is the nearest table in a incredibly large room with multiple layers of table spaced far out. Try actually looking at the facts of the case.