[W:2475] Ariz. State Senate Hears Preliminary Audit Report

[trouble13]

??? Where in that article does it say anything about making donor names public?



??? What does one have to do with the other?



??? Why are you even bringing this up in an totally unrelated topic? In any case, under the whistleblower statutes/rules, anonymity is protected.


This whole response appears to be a rant based on a strawman.

Do you not understand what the article is about??? did you bother to read it?

Here's how the article begins. It's not even hidden way down at the bottom. They literally open with this.

Opinion: 'It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.'​

EJ Montini
Arizona Republic

On Thursday, however, Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp pulled back the drapery, ordering that Fann and the Republican-controlled Senate make available “any and all” records, including communications, planning, procedures, as well as who exactly is paying for this fiasco, to the nonprofit group American Oversight, which sued Fann and the Senate under public records law.

The Arizona Republic also has a lawsuit aimed at making public the financial records and communications between the Senate and the Cyber Ninjas.

Fann’s attorneys tried to argue that because the Cyber Ninjas are private contractors they did not fall under the state’s public records laws.

Court 'completely rejects' the Senate's argument​

The judge in his ruling could not be more clear in dismissing that argument.

He wrote, “The court completely rejects Senate defendants’ argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not ‘public bodies’ they are exempt from the (public records law).”

Adding, “It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.”

The judge has ordered that the people who donated to the audit be a matter of public record.

You can say you are ok with that all you want but you certainly were against making other peoples names a matter of public record in previous matters which I pointed out in the post you responded to.

It's clearly obvious that the left wants the names to put on their enemies list and that judge was dutifully compliant with his ruling.

If that's how the left wants to play they better start coughing up some names that they don't want made public so the right can know who their enemies are as well.

 

[mike2810]

Do you not understand what the article is about??? did you bother to read it?

Here's how the article begins. It's not even hidden way down at the bottom. They literally open with this.









The judge has ordered that the people who donated to the audit be a matter of public record.

You can say you are ok with that all you want but you certainly were against making other peoples names a matter of public record in previous matters which I pointed out in the post you responded to.

It's clearly obvious that the left wants the names to put on their enemies list and that judge was dutifully compliant with his ruling.

If that's how the left wants to play they better start coughing up some names that they don't want made public so the right can know who their enemies are as well.

- I am a Republican and want to see who is making the donations to Cyber Ninjas.
Your assumption that is just people on the left is flawed.

 

[TomFitz]

Why? CyberNinjas doesn't seem to be having trouble with threats against them, what evidence is that that there would be any threats against donors for this?

What threats? They’re a joke. Not worth the effort.

 

[snakestretcher]

Do you not understand what the article is about??? did you bother to read it?

Here's how the article begins. It's not even hidden way down at the bottom. They literally open with this.









The judge has ordered that the people who donated to the audit be a matter of public record.

You can say you are ok with that all you want but you certainly were against making other peoples names a matter of public record in previous matters which I pointed out in the post you responded to.

It's clearly obvious that the left wants the names to put on their enemies list and that judge was dutifully compliant with his ruling.

If that's how the left wants to play they better start coughing up some names that they don't want made public so the right can know who their enemies are as well.

I like to know who my enemies are. Don't you?

 

[TomFitz]

Wow

You go off on a false tangent while adding zero to the topic of the thread.

Trump lost AZ in a fair election. I for one am fed up with 6 months of the Rights butt hurt.

It’s what they do.

They talk themselves into a corner, and then they try and derail the thread with absurd non sequesters, often laced with more obvious lies.

 

[RealityChecker]

Did you even read your link?
The border wall construction was halted because the funding was underhanded, the contracts were wasteful and walls are ineffective in many places.

The purpose of the US military is to protect US citizens from harm from foreign nationals. That certainly must include those invading the US when we know some are likely foreign terrorist and international criminal gangs that will likely harm (physically and fiscally) millions of Americans. If walls are ineffective at keeping out unwanted intruders/invaders then why are such walls built by so many governments and individuals to keep people off their property/territory?

The cost of the border wall Biden's EO stopped was a few billion dollars. That is but a tiny fraction of what US taxpayers are spending on feeding, transporting, providing legal fees for, providing free medical care for and free or low cost housing for, etc..

Your claim that Trump's funding of the border wall was halted because it was "underhanded" seems dubious. Why? Underhanded is defined as "acting or done in a secret or dishonest way." Trump's advocacy for the border wall was hardly secretive as his 2016 campaign made it clear he would do just that and take other steps to reduce illegal immigrants for coming to the US. Now it may seem unusual for someone running for political office would actually do what they claimed they'd do if elected but it certainly was not underhanded or illegal.

 

[j-mac]

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There is a page detailing Trump's crimes, charges, and lawsuits going back the 1970s.

Pretend there aren't any crimes there, so I can run a train on you.

Ok, lots of allegations I see…where’s the convictions? Without that you have nothing.

 

[roguenuke]

The purpose of the US military is to protect US citizens from harm from foreign nationals. That certainly must include those invading the US when we know some are likely foreign terrorist and international criminal gangs that will likely harm (physically and fiscally) millions of Americans. If walls are ineffective at keeping out unwanted intruders/invaders then why are such walls built by so many governments and individuals to keep people off their property/territory?

The cost of the border wall Biden's EO stopped was a few billion dollars. That is but a tiny fraction of what US taxpayers are spending on feeding, transporting, providing legal fees for, providing free medical care for and free or low cost housing for, etc..

Your claim that Trump's funding of the border wall was halted because it was "underhanded" seems dubious. Why? Underhanded is defined as "acting or done in a secret or dishonest way." Trump's advocacy for the border wall was hardly secretive as his 2016 campaign made it clear he would do just that and take other steps to reduce illegal immigrants for coming to the US. Now it may seem unusual for someone running for political office would actually do what they claimed they'd do if elected but it certainly was not underhanded or illegal.

That money was stolen from the military, taken for Trump's partisan BS. The cost isn't worth it. And the fact that there is a higher cost in other places than just that small pricetag shows that even more.

 

[trouble13]

Why? CyberNinjas doesn't seem to be having trouble with threats against them, what evidence is that that there would be any threats against donors for this?

Getting a straight answer from you is like pulling teeth today. Am I to assume you are fine with making donors names public and you don't believe their are any concerns that any retalitory actions against them will occur or do you just not care because it's those deplorable's?

 

[roguenuke]

Getting a straight answer from you is like pulling teeth today. Am I to assume you are fine with making donors names public and you don't believe their are any concerns that any retalitory actions against them will occur or do you just not care because it's those deplorable's?

I'm saying that you would need to show evidence of a threat before I would consider that there could be a legitimate, illegal threat. I'm fine with people/businesses facing some sort of boycott for example, which is completely legal.

 

[mike2810]

The purpose of the US military is to protect US citizens from harm from foreign nationals. That certainly must include those invading the US when we know some are likely foreign terrorist and international criminal gangs that will likely harm (physically and fiscally) millions of Americans. If walls are ineffective at keeping out unwanted intruders/invaders then why are such walls built by so many governments and individuals to keep people off their property/territory?

The cost of the border wall Biden's EO stopped was a few billion dollars. That is but a tiny fraction of what US taxpayers are spending on feeding, transporting, providing legal fees for, providing free medical care for and free or low cost housing for, etc..

Your claim that Trump's funding of the border wall was halted because it was "underhanded" seems dubious. Why? Underhanded is defined as "acting or done in a secret or dishonest way." Trump's advocacy for the border wall was hardly secretive as his 2016 campaign made it clear he would do just that and take other steps to reduce illegal immigrants for coming to the US. Now it may seem unusual for someone running for political office would actually do what they claimed they'd do if elected but it certainly was not underhanded or illegal.

I suggest you take your grievance up with members of Congress. Congress (House and Senate) control the purse strings. Seems to me that Congress is more at fault with the border security issue than any President.

 

[Airyaman]

Do you not understand what the article is about??? did you bother to read it?

Here's how the article begins. It's not even hidden way down at the bottom. They literally open with this.









The judge has ordered that the people who donated to the audit be a matter of public record.

You can say you are ok with that all you want but you certainly were against making other peoples names a matter of public record in previous matters which I pointed out in the post you responded to.

It's clearly obvious that the left wants the names to put on their enemies list and that judge was dutifully compliant with his ruling.

If that's how the left wants to play they better start coughing up some names that they don't want made public so the right can know who their enemies are as well.

I didn't link to this article, not sure why you want to bring it up in a response to me.

 

[Hatuey]

Ok, lots of allegations I see…

No convictions? Not one?

Lmao, you maga hat wearers are so incredibly dishonest.

 

[yankintx]

The purpose of the US military is to protect US citizens from harm from foreign nationals. That certainly must include those invading the US when we know some are likely foreign terrorist and international criminal gangs that will likely harm (physically and fiscally) millions of Americans. If walls are ineffective at keeping out unwanted intruders/invaders then why are such walls built by so many governments and individuals to keep people off their property/territory?

The cost of the border wall Biden's EO stopped was a few billion dollars. That is but a tiny fraction of what US taxpayers are spending on feeding, transporting, providing legal fees for, providing free medical care for and free or low cost housing for, etc..

Your claim that Trump's funding of the border wall was halted because it was "underhanded" seems dubious. Why? Underhanded is defined as "acting or done in a secret or dishonest way." Trump's advocacy for the border wall was hardly secretive as his 2016 campaign made it clear he would do just that and take other steps to reduce illegal immigrants for coming to the US. Now it may seem unusual for someone running for political office would actually do what they claimed they'd do if elected but it certainly was not underhanded or illegal.

Those funds for Trump's Wall came out of the DOD budget, specifically to update housing for active duty military. Have you seen some of the housing on military facilities. Some of it is from the 1950's, and was never meant to be in place for 60 years. Did you know that fact?

Why does Trump keep short changing our active duty military and Vets. He ripped them off thru Trump University, and moves funds from the DoD for a Wall.

If Trump really cared about funding the Wall, why cut taxes? Seems stupid if your going to embark on a billion dollar project you cut off a source of funding, example tax breaks for the top tier.

Trump was never one for the long game or strategy.

 

[RealityChecker]

It wasn't law and border walls do not stop illegal immigration. It was plain partisan circus.

Border walls and border fences are not built because they will stop all illegal entry, but they do make it more difficult for people to enter illegally. I am sure if you ask any US border patrol agent they will tell you such walls and fences do make it easier for them to do their job.

What "wall" was built in DC? They voted for border fencing in certain places. But President Biden was a Senator years ago, and things change, new info comes out.

Okay if you prefer fence than call it a fence but again the purpose of walls and fencing is to help keep people from entering.

You have failed to show that there is any significant threat from stopping the building of the border wall. Credible evidence would be required, not partisan hack jobs, lies, or misinformation.

Well we have seen a huge increase in the number of foreign nationals entering the US since Biden was elected and ended the Trump EOs that had certainly helped reduce the flow of foreign nationals from entering the US over the southern border illegally. Given the effect of the Trump EOs and other efforts to reduce illegal immigrants from entering the US and the utter failure of the Biden administration to limit such illegal immigration is not credible evidence that Trump's policies and EO were more effective at discouraging and preventing the illegal entry of foreign nationals into the US. It is hard to argue that most Americans are happy with the Biden open border policies. More here:

Most Americans Are Critical of Government’s Handling of Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border

Republican support for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain legally in the United States has declined.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[roguenuke]

Border walls and border fences are not built because they will stop all illegal entry, but they do make it more difficult for people to enter illegally. I am sure if you ask any US border patrol agent they will tell you such walls and fences do make it easier for them to do their job.

Okay if you prefer fence than call it a fence but again the purpose of walls and fencing is to help keep people from entering.

Well we have seen a huge increase in the number of foreign nationals entering the US since Biden was elected and ended the Trump EOs that had certainly helped reduce the flow of foreign nationals from entering the US over the southern border illegally. Given the effect of the Trump EOs and other efforts to reduce illegal immigrants from entering the US and the utter failure of the Biden administration to limit such illegal immigration is not credible evidence that Trump's policies and EO were more effective at discouraging and preventing the illegal entry of foreign nationals into the US. It is hard to argue that most Americans are happy with the Biden open border policies. More here:

Most Americans Are Critical of Government’s Handling of Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border

Republican support for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain legally in the United States has declined.

www.pewresearch.org

When most coming here are entering legally and overstaying, then border walls don't do jack for the real problem.

 

[TomFitz]

The purpose of the US military is to protect US citizens from harm from foreign nationals. That certainly must include those invading the US when we know some are likely foreign terrorist and international criminal gangs that will likely harm (physically and fiscally) millions of Americans. If walls are ineffective at keeping out unwanted intruders/invaders then why are such walls built by so many governments and individuals to keep people off their property/territory?

The cost of the border wall Biden's EO stopped was a few billion dollars. That is but a tiny fraction of what US taxpayers are spending on feeding, transporting, providing legal fees for, providing free medical care for and free or low cost housing for, etc..

Your claim that Trump's funding of the border wall was halted because it was "underhanded" seems dubious. Why? Underhanded is defined as "acting or done in a secret or dishonest way." Trump's advocacy for the border wall was hardly secretive as his 2016 campaign made it clear he would do just that and take other steps to reduce illegal immigrants for coming to the US. Now it may seem unusual for someone running for political office would actually do what they claimed they'd do if elected but it certainly was not underhanded or illegal.

“dubious”?

No, Trump’s Executive Order was dubious.

After weeks of posturing, bellowing and playing to the racists and the xenophobes, Trump actually blustered himself into a government shutdown.

When that finally collapsed (as most of Trump’s half-assed schemes usually did), Trump decided to try and play king,

He got Barr to create an EO declaring an obviously non existant state of emergency. This was a paper thin excuse for Trump to try and steal money already appropriated by Congress .

No President had tried that in 50 years. The last one was Richard Nixon, who “impounded” appropriated funds in a fight over the budget. That is, until the Supreme Court stopped him. Noting that the authority to appropriate and spend money belonged solely to Congress.

Trump used the emergency excuse. And with Bill Barr there to make sure no one in the Justice Department objected.

Trump stole money appropriated for real military readiness so he could juice his gimmick he was entertaining his base with.

After that, they ginned up a full blown noise campaign about “caravans”

And Steve Bannon and a couple of West Palm based cons, fleeced the suckers for money in a fake fundraising scam.

 

[snakestretcher]

Ok, lots of allegations I see…where’s the convictions? Without that you have nothing.

So, no actual convictions means he's innocent? Remember this? Resulted in the Trump 'foundation' being ordered to shut down; the judge called Trump's actions a "shocking pattern of financial illegality".

Best Stories Of The Decade: “How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business”

We're republishing our finest work from the past decade. Here, a masterpiece of reporting that systemically demonstrates how Eric Trump, at the direction of his father, the future president, shifted money that was supposed to go to help kids with cancer to the Trump Organization.

www.forbes.com

How about the fraudulent 'university' scam where he had to settle for $25 million to avoid a court appearance? Still think Trump is pure as the driven snow, right? Your boy is an unrepentant crook, period.

 

[TomFitz]

Border walls and border fences are not built because they will stop all illegal entry, but they do make it more difficult for people to enter illegally. I am sure if you ask any US border patrol agent they will tell you such walls and fences do make it easier for them to do their job.

Okay if you prefer fence than call it a fence but again the purpose of walls and fencing is to help keep people from entering.

Well we have seen a huge increase in the number of foreign nationals entering the US since Biden was elected and ended the Trump EOs that had certainly helped reduce the flow of foreign nationals from entering the US over the southern border illegally. Given the effect of the Trump EOs and other efforts to reduce illegal immigrants from entering the US and the utter failure of the Biden administration to limit such illegal immigration is not credible evidence that Trump's policies and EO were more effective at discouraging and preventing the illegal entry of foreign nationals into the US. It is hard to argue that most Americans are happy with the Biden open border policies. More here:

Most Americans Are Critical of Government’s Handling of Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border

Republican support for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain legally in the United States has declined.

www.pewresearch.org

Fence and wall don’t cover a clearly false analogy.

 

[ashurbanipal]

No it's not possible to tell the truth over certain monopolistic social media platforms. They label it as disinformation and shut it down if they find it inconvenient to their desired goals.

I don't think that's a very apt description of anything twitter has done, but I don't have time for that discussion right now. Instead, let me ask you: why does that make it impossible to tell the truth on social media platforms? More to the point, why would that mean that what Maricopa county said about these supposed 74k ballots is false?

 

[ashurbanipal]

If you're looking for oddities to support suspicion, look at oddities that occurred in the real world.

Joe Biden, noted ZERO, is credited with the highest number of votes ever cast for any human being running for anything in any country at any time anywhere in the history of mankind.

We're talking about Joe Biden here.

If you are looking for oddities to wonder about, this would be the number one election oddity in the history of mankind.

All you did was repeat your point, so I'll repeat mine: it's not so very odd when you consider HOW FAR BELOW ZERO Trump was, in the judgment of many millions of American voters. Again, Kermit the Frog would have gotten that many votes just to get the bumbling orange lunatic out of office. Hankie the Christmas Poo would have gotten 81 million votes. The skeleton of King Richard the III would have gotten 81 million votes. A one-pound collection of giraffe boogers would have gotten 81 million votes. Y'all just can't wrap your heads around how much people really disliked the Donald. Can't wrap your heads around the fact that there are many more of us than there are of you.

That said, I disagree that Joe Biden was a "noted ZERO." I agree he's not an exciting candidate, but after four years of being on a rollercoaster, it's quite understandable that people are looking for a little time on the plain ol' solid ground.

 

[j-mac]

No convictions? Not one?

Lmao, you maga hat wearers are so incredibly dishonest.

Ok, show me his convictions of criminal offenses?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Getting a straight answer from you is like pulling teeth today. Am I to assume you are fine with making donors names public and you don't believe their are any concerns that any retalitory actions against them will occur or do you just not care because it's those deplorable's?

Why are you putting the onus on transparency as problematic?

 

[j-mac]

So, no actual convictions means he's innocent? Remember this? Resulted in the Trump 'foundation' being ordered to shut down; the judge called Trump's actions a "shocking pattern of financial illegality".

Best Stories Of The Decade: “How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business”

We're republishing our finest work from the past decade. Here, a masterpiece of reporting that systemically demonstrates how Eric Trump, at the direction of his father, the future president, shifted money that was supposed to go to help kids with cancer to the Trump Organization.

www.forbes.com

How about the fraudulent 'university' scam where he had to settle for $25 million to avoid a court appearance? Still think Trump is pure as the driven snow, right? Your boy is an unrepentant crook, period.

Yet he wasn’t convicted of anything…anything else?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

This is GREAT news for all those interested in correcting the voting fraud not only here but now in Pennsylvania and Georgia and perhaps other states to follow. It is beyond belief that a guy who didn't campaign except before some CNN reporters and 15 high school girls outdoors in crop circles politely clapping, saying "Vote for me!" beat a guy like Trump who got overflow crowds everywhere he went. Now the truth will come out. Let's hope people go to jail. We need indictments NOW!

When the voter-fraud accusations began it seemed to me possible that it could have happened. I admit it seemed likely. But then I realized that there would be no way for me, as a solitary person, to sift through the evidence in order to know what was true and untrue. So I put the whole thing aside. Suspended judgment.

Yet, I have a similar perception as you: it seems *highly unlikely* that a figure like Biden could have won the election when compared to the dynamism of Donald Trump. But is it possible that election fraud could really have occurred?