• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Link to live feed of Maricopa County audit presentation

Did this guy just say that he invented email?
yes, as a kid. His claim has been completely debunked, email was being used on ARPANET long before he wrote any code.

He is a creator of multiple fraudulent claims....perfect for the fraudit.
 
Opening from the Republican


So in summary, the vote count was fine, but they will yammer about other stuff to sow doubt and continue to give food to the big lie.
In reality, right wing media and Republicans spread voter fraud misinformation sufficient to undermine Republican confidence in the election, much of which was probably just politically motivated trolling
So...kinda like what was done throughout the russia hoax thing...but taken all the way to the extreme.

Well, at least you can say that republicans don't half ass things.
 
So...kinda like what was done throughout the russia hoax thing...but taken all the way to the extreme.

Well, at least you can say that republicans don't half ass things.
Yeah, same sort of thing. Complain loudly, without real evidence, and then do an "investigation".
Similar to Benghazi I suppose too. Why do one investigation (recount) when you can do 9? And blast your opposition the entire time?
I would suspect they will do the same...show all sorts of things that are "wrong" based on a 5 month audit vs a (few weeks) vote count. Then use that to claim they were right along with voter fraud being an issue.
If it floats for the base, they will repeat in other counties one might imagine. A constant stream of "voter fraud" tidbits for the base.

But we'll see I suppose.

This reminds me of the Hillary email conspiracy theory that it was an inside job. You had all these tech guys claiming it could only be done with USB, but they were completely wrong, and had no real evidence to back their claims, an certainly no evidence that it was done that way. Yet we still had people complaining about it even on this forum for years.
 
What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?

They'll just make up new bullshit to try to explain how the audit doesn't debunk their prior bullshit. I have little doubt that we'll hear things like "they didn't have full access!" and "this person didn't feel like being interviewed by them. Consciousness of guilt!"

Basically, they'll pull a Lindell, who has yet again shifted back his prediction for when the Supreme Court will "rule" that Trump is to be reinstated. The rapture now occurs after Thanksgiving.




I'd like to be wrong, but watching 9 or so years of "the first black president is a kenyan muslim who is racist against white people and is trying to destroy America because he hates it" morph into Trumpism, morph into an insurrection seeking to put Trump in via coup (OP referred to this as a "kegger", you will remember), and everything since.....

Heh. They're not gonna say "oops, we were wrong." After all, the idea is to built more groundwork for stealing future elections.

"What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?" I say about the same probability that the MSM and DP's anti-Trump cadre will change theirs.

Fact is, most of us of any political leaning didn't think the audit would actually change the outcome for Arizona, but many believed that it would either reveal a near error and corruption free election OR serious problems that undermine electoral credibility and public confidence. And contrary to the desperate MSM spin to pretend otherwise, and a confirmation of the legitimacy of Arizona's electoral process it has done quite the opposite - it has shown gaping holes and audit terrified officials that have had a reason to obstruct full disclosure of their "management".

Full, true and plain disclosure of public processes and records is a fundamental obligation in a democracy. As such it is also the obligation of public officials to comply with government directed compliance audits. Any public official who obstructs election audits of their compliance with the law, rules, and election regulations and policies is, by definition, corrupt and is facilitating corruption.

At the very least obstruction is accomplished by "don't ask, then don't tell" mentality of government workers. At the worst is outright refusal to cooperate and/or lying. They will invent all sorts of excuses in their campaign against honest elections and when faced with anticipated bad results will convince themselves that adverse results don't matter.

Yet, in spite of determined obstruction of the audit it did manage to uncover very serious problems, sufficiently close to the margin of error to confirm that Arizona election offices in some counties are either corrupt and/or horribly incompetent and, perhaps, close enough to have changed the election.

How deep is the rabbit hole? Consider this summary:

1632521849194.png

And worse:

1632521951407.png


In short, this is yet another example why the public has no confidence in our election systems and why, by any reasonable measure, it isn't credible. If this is what is discovered in spite of the "on all fours" resistance by election officials, no telling what could be discovered had they in good faith joined the audit as an opportunity for improvement.

We now have a glimpse as to what they have been hiding.
 
Yeah, same sort of thing. Complain loudly, without real evidence, and then do an "investigation".
Similar to Benghazi I suppose too. Why do one investigation (recount) when you can do 9? And blast your opposition the entire time?
I would suspect they will do the same...show all sorts of things that are "wrong" based on a 5 month audit vs a (few weeks) vote count. Then use that to claim they were right along with voter fraud being an issue.
If it floats for the base, they will repeat in other counties one might imagine. A constant stream of "voter fraud" tidbits for the base.

But we'll see I suppose.

This reminds me of the Hillary email conspiracy theory that it was an inside job. You had all these tech guys claiming it could only be done with USB, but they were completely wrong, and had no real evidence to back their claims, an certainly no evidence that it was done that way. Yet we still had people complaining about it even on this forum for years.
So I guess we gotta ask...when does it end? When does the witch hunt for "the other guy" end? And how? We've lost faith, trust. At least, I have. Cyber Ninjas?!? Give me a break, lol. What a joke. Because before that, it was a general talking to someone in China, etc. And before that, it was Russia, and before that, it was Kavenaugh, and before that, it was emails, and before that, it was benghazi, and before that, it was AHCA lies, and before that, it was birth cirtificates, and before that, it was WMDs in Iraq, and before that, it was knob gobbling in the oval office....

It's like christians vs muslims...at some point, we gotta let the past be the past. But the problem is, the folks on the right think that every investigation and accusation made against those on the left were completely legit, and the same for the folks on the left! So...which investigations do I believe? Who's claims are legit, and who's are politically motivated?
 
So I guess we gotta ask...when does it end? When does the witch hunt for "the other guy" end? And how? We've lost faith, trust. At least, I have. Cyber Ninjas?!? Give me a break, lol. What a joke. Because before that, it was a general talking to someone in China, etc. And before that, it was Russia, and before that, it was Kavenaugh, and before that, it was emails, and before that, it was benghazi, and before that, it was AHCA lies, and before that, it was birth cirtificates, and before that, it was WMDs in Iraq, and before that, it was knob gobbling in the oval office....

It's like christians vs muslims...at some point, we gotta let the past be the past. But the problem is, the folks on the right think that every investigation and accusation made against those on the left were completely legit, and the same for the folks on the left! So...which investigations do I believe? Who's claims are legit, and who's are politically motivated?

.
.
So...kinda like what was done throughout the russia hoax thing...but taken all the way to the extreme.

+
<> And before that, it was Russia <>
Except, Trump did invite Russian interference, did receive it, and did so much as boast about not going to the authorities. There just wasn't evidence of an "explicit agreement", which is required for criminal conspiracy. Skating on one element of a criminal charge doesn't mean a politician did nothing that voters can legitimately consider wrong. And Russia has kept on doing it.

And that same Mueller investigation uncovered 14+ instances of obstruction of justice. And DOJ policy did prohibit him from seeking indictment, and he did explain he felt that barred raising an accusation of guilt.

Nothing like the "voter fraud" lie.

Then there was the "perfect phone call" where even his memo was damning.

Then there's 1/6; the coup memo, everything else, and it's being investigated. Is that also a witch hunt? Or did some real shit appear to go down and it's worth investigating?

It's like christians vs muslims...at some point, we gotta let the past be the past. But the problem is, the folks on the right think that every investigation and accusation made against those on the left were completely legit, and the same for the folks on the left! So...which investigations do I believe? Who's claims are legit, and who's are politically motivated?

One could answer questions like that by, say, reading Mueller's report re: the Russia investigation. But it was almost 500 pages, and isn't a Stephen King book. The pages don't fly. They are damning as all hell.

Perhaps the best way to ensure ongoing corruption is to say "well, they both accuse eachother, so it's both-sides", even if accidentally.



Different things are different. Pretend it's all the same and we invite a race to the bottom.
 
"What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?" I say about the same probability that the MSM and DP's anti-Trump cadre will change theirs.

Fact is, most of us of any political leaning didn't think the audit would actually change the outcome for Arizona, but many believed that it would either reveal a near error and corruption free election OR serious problems that undermine electoral credibility and public confidence. And contrary to the desperate MSM spin to pretend otherwise, and a confirmation of the legitimacy of Arizona's electoral process it has done quite the opposite - it has shown gaping holes and audit terrified officials that have had a reason to obstruct full disclosure of their "management".

Full, true and plain disclosure of public processes and records is a fundamental obligation in a democracy. As such it is also the obligation of public officials to comply with government directed compliance audits. Any public official who obstructs election audits of their compliance with the law, rules, and election regulations and policies is, by definition, corrupt and is facilitating corruption.

At the very least obstruction is accomplished by "don't ask, then don't tell" mentality of government workers. At the worst is outright refusal to cooperate and/or lying. They will invent all sorts of excuses in their campaign against honest elections and when faced with anticipated bad results will convince themselves that adverse results don't matter.

Yet, in spite of determined obstruction of the audit it did manage to uncover very serious problems, sufficiently close to the margin of error to confirm that Arizona election offices in some counties are either corrupt and/or horribly incompetent and, perhaps, close enough to have changed the election.

How deep is the rabbit hole? Consider this summary:

View attachment 67355387

And worse:

View attachment 67355389


In short, this is yet another example why the public has no confidence in our election systems and why, by any reasonable measure, it isn't credible. If this is what is discovered in spite of the "on all fours" resistance by election officials, no telling what could be discovered had they in good faith joined the audit as an opportunity for improvement.

We now have a glimpse as to what they have been hiding.

Where is the evidence of voter fraud?

You're doing exactly what I predicted and so did they.
 
.
.


+

Except, Trump did invite Russian interference, did receive it, and did so much as boast about not going to the authorities. There just wasn't evidence of an "explicit agreement", which is required for criminal conspiracy. Skating on one element of a criminal charge doesn't mean a politician did nothing that voters can legitimately consider wrong. And Russia has kept on doing it.
And Hillary's emails DID prove collusion between her campaign and the DNC to sink the Sanders campaign.
And that same Mueller investigation uncovered 14+ instances of obstruction of justice. And DOJ policy did prohibit him from seeking indictment, and he did explain he felt that barred raising an accusation of guilt.

Nothing like the "voter fraud" lie.

Then there was the "perfect phone call" where even his memo was damning.

Then there's 1/6; the coup memo, everything else, and it's being investigated. Is that also a witch hunt? Or did some real shit appear to go down and it's worth investigating?
The 1/6 riot absolutely is worth investigating. But I won't call it an insurrection until the prosecutors nut up and bring charges of insurrection.
One could answer questions like that by, say, reading Mueller's report re: the Russia investigation. But it was almost 500 pages, and isn't a Stephen King book. The pages don't fly. They are damning as all hell.
Yeah, sorry, I'm not reading it. Not just 500 pages, but likely 500 pages of legal speak.
Perhaps the best way to ensure ongoing corruption is to say "well, they both accuse eachother, so it's both-sides", even if accidentally.



Different things are different. Pretend it's all the same and we invite a race to the bottom.
So...who do I trust? Here you are, claiming to be a realistic sorta guy, and yet, your bias shows, by only focusing on one side...and really, one guy.
 
In short, this is yet another example why the public has no confidence in our election systems and why, by any reasonable measure, it isn't credible. If this is what is discovered in spite of the "on all fours" resistance by election officials, no telling what could be discovered had they in good faith joined the audit as an opportunity for improvement.
We now have a glimpse as to what they have been hiding.
From Maricopa (from the other thread)


They address your "critical" issues.
 
And Hillary's emails DID prove collusion between her campaign and the DNC to sink the Sanders campaign.

The 1/6 riot absolutely is worth investigating. But I won't call it an insurrection until the prosecutors nut up and bring charges of insurrection.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not reading it. Not just 500 pages, but likely 500 pages of legal speak.

So...who do I trust? Here you are, claiming to be a realistic sorta guy, and yet, your bias shows, by only focusing on one side...and really, one guy.

1. ok, but that's hardly on par with a president using office for corrupt activities. The Dems paid heavily for that, too.

2. I know what I see in videos. If everyone else wants to go with pure legal definitions to talk about things colloquially, I'll consider joining. But for now...insurrection...putsch...whatever. They invaded the Capitol Building for the first time since 1/6, there was an intent to stop the certification so as to buy Trump time to "prove voter fraud" aka steal the presidency, and quite frankly I don't care what the 500th person in knew about what the first person in intended. Looking at those videos, I see no way to give a benefit of the doubt to the whole thing.

3. Exactly. You're not reading it. And it's "legal speak". It's actually not.....almost all of it is the factual accounting. But sure, don't read it.

4. You have no way of knowing who to trust without looking into the evidence, which you don't. You just said it. You won't read it. You won't even skim it. But you *just know* it's like 7+ investigations into Benghazi. K.


Which makes it kinda hilarious that you get into my alleged bias. Are you saying I'm biased because I didn't give a spiel on every last thing you mentioned? Or because I don't agree with you about the Mueller investigation? Which is it, and whose bias, really, does that show, Mr. "I'm not reading that"?
 
1. ok, but that's hardly on par with a president using office for corrupt activities. The Dems paid heavily for that, too.

2. I know what I see in videos. If everyone else wants to go with pure legal definitions to talk about things colloquially, I'll consider joining. But for now...insurrection...putsch...whatever. They invaded the Capitol Building for the first time since 1/6, there was an intent to stop the certification so as to buy Trump time to "prove voter fraud" aka steal the presidency, and quite frankly I don't care what the 500th person in knew about what the first person in intended. Looking at those videos, I see no way to give a benefit of the doubt to the whole thing.

3. Exactly. You're not reading it. And it's "legal speak". It's actually not.....almost all of it is the factual accounting. But sure, don't read it.

4. You have no way of knowing who to trust without looking into the evidence, which you don't.



Which makes it kinda hilarious that you get into my alleged bias. Are you saying I'm biased because I didn't give a spiel on every last thing you mentioned? Or because I don't agree with you about the Mueller investigation? Which is it, and whose bias, really, does that show, Mr. "I'm not reading that"?
Dude, I've got 3 kids (one of which isn't mine, lest you accuse me of irresponsibly having kids), and I take care of my mom. This, in addition to working 60 hours or more per week. So yeah, with the hour per day of free time I get, I'm not reading a 500 page investigation into Russia. If it is truly so damning, then there should have been no technicalities by which Trump skated. Bottom line is, it wasn't enough to put him away, so why should I bother with it? And that's assuming I'm smart enough to understand or draw meaningful conclusions from it.

I think Jan 6th was...an extremely inept, clumsy attempt at insurrection. It's like...if a mentally handicapped person tried to steal my car. But never the less, intent or no, they violently broke into a federal building and the ensuing chaos and violence resulted in death and injury.

But again, the prosecution needs to bring those charges. But they won't, because theyre worried doing so will hurt their conviction odds.

As for me looking into evidence...I have, and continue to do so...but who's evidence? I've been on record through out asking for a smoking gun, both for Obama, and for Trump, because I'm fed up with innuendo and conjecture. Take climate change. There's science on both sides of that argument, both claiming the other is false, both providing evidence. Well, shit, man. I'm not a scientist, lol. I went to liberal arts college. I work retail for a living. I see spread sheets with data tossed around all the time. May as well be greek.
 
"What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?" I say about the same probability that the MSM and DP's anti-Trump cadre will change theirs.

Fact is, most of us of any political leaning didn't think the audit would actually change the outcome for Arizona, but many believed that it would either reveal a near error and corruption free election OR serious problems that undermine electoral credibility and public confidence. And contrary to the desperate MSM spin to pretend otherwise, and a confirmation of the legitimacy of Arizona's electoral process it has done quite the opposite - it has shown gaping holes and audit terrified officials that have had a reason to obstruct full disclosure of their "management".

Full, true and plain disclosure of public processes and records is a fundamental obligation in a democracy. As such it is also the obligation of public officials to comply with government directed compliance audits. Any public official who obstructs election audits of their compliance with the law, rules, and election regulations and policies is, by definition, corrupt and is facilitating corruption.

At the very least obstruction is accomplished by "don't ask, then don't tell" mentality of government workers. At the worst is outright refusal to cooperate and/or lying. They will invent all sorts of excuses in their campaign against honest elections and when faced with anticipated bad results will convince themselves that adverse results don't matter.

Yet, in spite of determined obstruction of the audit it did manage to uncover very serious problems, sufficiently close to the margin of error to confirm that Arizona election offices in some counties are either corrupt and/or horribly incompetent and, perhaps, close enough to have changed the election.

How deep is the rabbit hole? Consider this summary:

View attachment 67355387

And worse:

View attachment 67355389


In short, this is yet another example why the public has no confidence in our election systems and why, by any reasonable measure, it isn't credible. If this is what is discovered in spite of the "on all fours" resistance by election officials, no telling what could be discovered had they in good faith joined the audit as an opportunity for improvement.

We now have a glimpse as to what they have been hiding.

I will make it simple. Why do you believe some of the findings in this report?
- Why did the report say Potential voters who voted in multiple counties? Either some voters did or they did not vote in multiple counties.
(one reason to state the way they did is to sow doubt.)
- Cyber Ninjas has been shown they misrepresent data from files. Take the V32 and V33 files. They had to back track some of their statements.
(they said it was unintentional. yeh right. )

- Want to bet that If asked to recount the ballots and votes for Biden/Trump they could not come up with the same number they derived through this audit. Humans and machines can make mistakes in counting.

A couple of things I found lacking is them not addressing how they believe the voting machines were configured. I also find how they did not address earlier audit findings.
 
Dude, I've got 3 kids (one of which isn't mine, lest you accuse me of irresponsibly having kids), and I take care of my mom. This, in addition to working 60 hours or more per week. So yeah, with the hour per day of free time I get, I'm not reading a 500 page investigation into Russia. If it is truly so damning, then there should have been no technicalities by which Trump skated. Bottom line is, it wasn't enough to put him away, so why should I bother with it? And that's assuming I'm smart enough to understand or draw meaningful conclusions from it.

I think Jan 6th was...an extremely inept, clumsy attempt at insurrection. It's like...if a mentally handicapped person tried to steal my car. But never the less, intent or no, they violently broke into a federal building and the ensuing chaos and violence resulted in death and injury.

But again, the prosecution needs to bring those charges. But they won't, because theyre worried doing so will hurt their conviction odds.

As for me looking into evidence...I have, and continue to do so...but who's evidence? I've been on record through out asking for a smoking gun, both for Obama, and for Trump, because I'm fed up with innuendo and conjecture. Take climate change. There's science on both sides of that argument, both claiming the other is false, both providing evidence. Well, shit, man. I'm not a scientist, lol. I went to liberal arts college. I work retail for a living. I see spread sheets with data tossed around all the time. May as well be greek.

This post may be tl;dr. The shortest version is at bottom.

1. Ok. Then don't. But if I'm in a position where I cannot read the thing I need to read to triangulate a decent answer, I either do not express an opinion or flag that I only have a bare grounding.


2. Yes, it was moronic. Thank the God that doesn't exist. But note how state GOPs have responded. It's not just restrictions in the name of fighting "voter fraud". Groundwork is being laid. It is reckless to presume it's just the one time.


3. Yeah, because the actual insurrection charge is hard to prove. But the legal definition is different from the colloquial. Want to call it a Putsch instead? Fine. But the bottom line is the Capitol building was invaded with the overall intent of stopping Biden from being certified winner, and then it gets mixed. Kill a bunch of congresspeople, kill Pence, vandalize, steal some crap, just generally....rabble rabble. No matter what anyone knew, there's no mistaking that this was a violent break-in to the capitol. Look at them fighting the police! If you don't like me calling that an insurrection - at least to all who went in - then oy boy, you'll hate some shit that gets people convicted as joint venturers in crime, especially the related felony murder rule. But anyway...

Call it a beer hall putsch, except with tailgating not beer halls. I dunno. That was some serious shit.


4. As to anything one does not witness, one can always say "well, how do I trust this?" The Mueller report was more footnote than body text. It went through that all. Here's what we're saying, footnote, here's why we're saying it.



4b. Climate change? Well, that's why we have expertise. Without it, civilization wouldn't have gotten past beer. I'm not saying one should give a blank check to people who say they are experts. Hell, a bunch lie. But when you've got thousands, no tens of 'em, around the world....when they've devoted their careers to studying a thing... and there is a consensus among peer-reviewed papers in journals that any would-be debunker can obtain, it makes little sense to reject what they're saying. There are a few handfuls of people claiming to have worked it out but got rejected from said papers. Ok. But who do I believe?

Well....I'm not a scientist and I'm not in AGW. I do appeals in criminal cases involving indigent defendants. I have a vaguer broader knowledge about other stuff. I make sure to note that if I'm opining on something not in my exact area. But that gives me a sense of the vast gulf between layman 'knowledge' and expert 'knowledge.' I'm not going to doubt a massive consensus based on a few people, not anymore than I tolerate these threads where either a left-lean or a right-lean person says a SCOTUS decision they don't like was motivated by justices' contrary leans wanting to reward a side. Etc.


tl;dr

The Mueller investigation was justified, and I'm actually kinda pissed Garland didn't appoint an independent counsel to decide whether or not to pursue federal charges in light of the report. He isn't president. He isn't protected. And while I haven't actually handled a federal obstruction charge, I have in a general sense seen people go to jail for a whole lot less on other charges.
 
Last edited:
From Maricopa (from the other thread)


They address your "critical" issues.

Its probably military and college kids.
 
And to be clear:

I disapprove of Garland not appointing an independent prosecutor to determine whether to bring charges against Trump now that he is not sitting; but

I approve of Biden not telling him to. My greatest complaint in POTUS-AG under Trump was Trump's direct use - or attempted, in some lucky cases - of the AG to make the DOJ target people for Trump's reasons. I cannot in good conscience demand Biden do the same thing because I happen to feel it would be justified.



POTUS should set general DOJ policy regarding prosecutorial discretion. He should not interfere in individual cases. Principles aren't principles if they only matter when you think you're right.
 
Where is the evidence of voter fraud?

You're doing exactly what I predicted and so did they.

You mean when you moved the goal posts of the audit, you also predicted someone would try to move them back.

Nice try.
 
You mean after you move the goal posts of the audit you predicted someone would try to move them back. Well duh, yaaaaaaa.

In English please?

Here's what I said in post #2:
What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?
They'll just make up new bullshit to try to explain how the audit doesn't debunk their prior bullshit. I have little doubt that we'll hear things like "they didn't have full access!" and "this person didn't feel like being interviewed by them. Consciousness of guilt!"​
Basically, they'll pull a Lindell, who has yet again shifted back his prediction for when the Supreme Court will "rule" that Trump is to be reinstated. The rapture now occurs after Thanksgiving.​
I'd like to be wrong, but watching 9 or so years of "the first black president is a kenyan muslim who is racist against white people and is trying to destroy America because he hates it" morph into Trumpism, morph into an insurrection seeking to put Trump in via coup (OP referred to this as a "kegger", you will remember), and everything since.....​
Heh. They're not gonna say "oops, we were wrong." After all, the idea is to built more groundwork for stealing future elections​
You did a bunch of that crap. "But they found stuff, so it's still suspicious, so we have to investigate more."

Who are you trying to convince? You keep telling us what you'll do. Then you do it. Then you're all "see? We were right." No ,that's not how anything works.

No voter fraud was found, but they made sure to give you some treats. So you chew them and announce that the third audit was no good, and we need more. That was the point from the beginning.



The Big Lie is a Big Lie. Hopefully Trumpists don't destroy democracy with it.
 
How long did the summation run?
 
"What's the probability DP's Big Lie proponents will change their tune?" I say about the same probability that the MSM and DP's anti-Trump cadre will change theirs.

Fact is, most of us of any political leaning didn't think the audit would actually change the outcome for Arizona, but many believed that it would either reveal a near error and corruption free election OR serious problems that undermine electoral credibility and public confidence. And contrary to the desperate MSM spin to pretend otherwise, and a confirmation of the legitimacy of Arizona's electoral process it has done quite the opposite - it has shown gaping holes and audit terrified officials that have had a reason to obstruct full disclosure of their "management".

Full, true and plain disclosure of public processes and records is a fundamental obligation in a democracy. As such it is also the obligation of public officials to comply with government directed compliance audits. Any public official who obstructs election audits of their compliance with the law, rules, and election regulations and policies is, by definition, corrupt and is facilitating corruption.

At the very least obstruction is accomplished by "don't ask, then don't tell" mentality of government workers. At the worst is outright refusal to cooperate and/or lying. They will invent all sorts of excuses in their campaign against honest elections and when faced with anticipated bad results will convince themselves that adverse results don't matter.

Yet, in spite of determined obstruction of the audit it did manage to uncover very serious problems, sufficiently close to the margin of error to confirm that Arizona election offices in some counties are either corrupt and/or horribly incompetent and, perhaps, close enough to have changed the election.

How deep is the rabbit hole? Consider this summary:

View attachment 67355387

And worse:

View attachment 67355389


In short, this is yet another example why the public has no confidence in our election systems and why, by any reasonable measure, it isn't credible. If this is what is discovered in spite of the "on all fours" resistance by election officials, no telling what could be discovered had they in good faith joined the audit as an opportunity for improvement.

We now have a glimpse as to what they have been hiding.
Good, if you don't have confidence in our elections, don't bother to vote anymore.
 
From Maricopa (from the other thread)


They address your "critical" issues.


Actually what they (Maricopa) do is what they have always done...

a) Disallow the audit to confirm the cause of these concerns and then...

b) Then offer conjecture on reasons how this might explain what appears to be dubious, but is innocent.

This won't sell to any auditor but a gullible fool. Financial, compliance auditors don't take the word of the money handlers that the books and bank accounts don't balance based on conjectured innocent reasons - not when the those being audited also obstruct looking at source documents and actual transactions. (And it doesn't lend to Maricopa's credibility when it starts out with sneering and insults in a tweet).

As I stated, when you act guilty with obstruction and refusal to provide full disclosure, the inevitable conclusion is you are covering up. Either they cooperated in providing the actual sampling of ballots, names, and verifications or they can act like con artists scrambling to fool an auditor.
 
Senator Fann should as the MCBOS if they would like to present their take on the audit report and provide their specialist regarding the voting system and database. She should hold a hearing with MCBOS. Same format. Presentation only, no questions.

She won't. She seems to have taken the Loan bait, hook, line and sinker.
 
Actually what they (Maricopa) do is what they have always done...

a) Disallow the audit to confirm the cause of these concerns and then...

b) Then offer conjecture on reasons how this might explain what appears to be dubious, but is innocent.

This won't sell to any auditor but a gullible fool. Financial, compliance auditors don't take the word of the money handlers that the books and bank accounts don't balance based on conjectured innocent reasons - not when the those being audited also obstruct looking at source documents and actual transactions. (And it doesn't lend to Maricopa's credibility when it starts out with sneering and insults in a tweet).

As I stated, when you act guilty with obstruction and refusal to provide full disclosure, the inevitable conclusion is you are covering up. Either they cooperated in providing the actual sampling of ballots, names, and verifications or they can act like con artists scrambling to fool an auditor.
When you hire an auditor who spouts stolen election before and during the audit, refuses to comply with court orders, and comes up requests without reasons, what should one expect from the report.

- Did Logan ever explain how he believes the voting system was configured? MCBOS did.
- Did Logan misinterpret data files (ex: V32, V33)? Yes he did.
 
I will make it simple. Why do you believe some of the findings in this report?
- Why did the report say Potential voters who voted in multiple counties? Either some voters did or they did not vote in multiple counties.
(one reason to state the way they did is to sow doubt.)
- Cyber Ninjas has been shown they misrepresent data from files. Take the V32 and V33 files. They had to back track some of their statements.
(they said it was unintentional. yeh right. )

- Want to bet that If asked to recount the ballots and votes for Biden/Trump they could not come up with the same number they derived through this audit. Humans and machines can make mistakes in counting.

A couple of things I found lacking is them not addressing how they believe the voting machines were configured. I also find how they did not address earlier audit findings.

I too will make it simple, why do you give someone who attempts to obstruct and refuses to provide information for a compliance audit the benefit of the doubt? Seriously, where in financial audits, securities offerings, or any serious activity is this acceptable? Who does that but partisan or incompetent or corrupt individuals?

No one can take a democracy seriously when its run with less robust checks and balances than a purple fingered election in a third world election. And no one, other than people who hold undue power, should resent a full audit.

When you keep blasting the audit as unneeded, then blast them as they start, then blast them some more at they tell you what they were allowed to determine and what they were not, then offer unverified (and unverifiable) excuses what is any reasonable person to conclude?

Let's see, when is the last time I have read of such tactics...oh ya, Theranos and Enron...
 
Back
Top Bottom