Back to Arizona and that breach of the voter rolls. If the Maricopa County Recorder knew about it, so did Katie Hobbs.
*****OFFICIAL ELECTION DAY THREAD*****
2,693,456 Views |
20889 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Whistle Pig
Has anyone issued any subpoenas or lawsuits against CTCL? That needs to be pursued with extreme diligence.
If it is found that elected officials knew their was enough fraud to swing any state/election and intentionally tried to cover it up, they need to be hanging from the nearest tree to the courthouse.
So about PA auditing their election????
You would have to think that they know something about how things are going to turn out in the AZ audit, otherwise this just looks stupid. If AZ shows zero fraud then these other states are going to have zero public support for an audit in their own states.
You would have to think that they know something about how things are going to turn out in the AZ audit, otherwise this just looks stupid. If AZ shows zero fraud then these other states are going to have zero public support for an audit in their own states.
IMHO, there are too many "hanging from trees" references and I believe that's outdated punishment. They should be tied to a chair and forced to watch "The View" 24/7 for a lifetime. They should be fed Red Hots as the only meal and as manual labor, must make MAGA hats and all profits go to WinRed.
That is pretty sound thinking and I would agree, but I don't think it is a strictly logical conclusion. What may have happened in Arizona is exclusive of what may have happened in PA. There is still plenty of reason to conduct a forensic audit based on the evidence there regardless of AZ.
I suspect that some initial information was shared with those delegations visiting in exchange for not revealing any of that information. I don't know if they will outright claim fraud, i.e. printed/copied ballots (no creases, etc.) but I suspect that they will have found 10,000s of "inconsistencies". Some will be innocent, explainable or understandable. Some will likely not be. With the apparently incredibly sloppy chain of custody (I've done the election judge training in multiple counties in Texas and it's... not great, I imagine it's similar across the country), there will be huge difficulties pin pointing where/how much of it occurred.FriscoKid said:
So about PA auditing their election????
You would have to think that they know something about how things are going to turn out in the AZ audit, otherwise this just looks stupid. If AZ shows zero fraud then these other states are going to have zero public support for an audit in their own states.
Like most here this bears watching very closely.
While I don't disagree on principal, practically I'd think the opposite.American Hardwood said:
That is pretty sound thinking and I would agree, but I don't think it is a strictly logical conclusion. What may have happened in Arizona is exclusive of what may have happened in PA. There is still plenty of reason to conduct a forensic audit based on the evidence there regardless of AZ.
If the Arizona audit doesn't find anything then it's over. No amount of searching will uncover how they did it. This was a very thorough inspection and they turned over a lot of stones.American Hardwood said:
That is pretty sound thinking and I would agree, but I don't think it is a strictly logical conclusion. What may have happened in Arizona is exclusive of what may have happened in PA. There is still plenty of reason to conduct a forensic audit based on the evidence there regardless of AZ.
We are all in agreement. If Arizona fails to uncover anything wrong it is likely over for any other audit because of pragmatic reasons but that the argument isn't strictly logical because the two states are exclusive was my only point. They COULD still do an audit but it is very likely they wouldn't.
BREAKING 🚨: Pennsylvania Just Initiated A FULL FORENSIC ELECTION AUDIT, Using The Same Practices As Arizona Audit https://t.co/7J68LcFh66 pic.twitter.com/vhc4ZD2NOh
— Atlas Shrugs (@atlasshrugs) July 7, 2021
Well, they made it official.
(Maybe this is old news, but I thought they were just talking about doing it)
They have to know something.
The most common tactic was probably fraudulent voting by mail. There were real citizens and real ballots, but the real citizens did not complete the real ballots.
Look at what the investigator in Harris County uncovered - citizens surprised to learn they had voted, and their ballot applications were all submitted by the same individual. If you believe that only happened to a handful of individuals in Houston and not nationwide... well...
The problem is that without the ability to locate and interview voters, it is nearly impossible to detect. Signature matching can help somewhat, but only a bit.
(One sign of this kind of operation are the urban housing complexes - large, city-block-sized apartment buildings - with Saddam-Hussein-like 95%+ turnout.)
Look at what the investigator in Harris County uncovered - citizens surprised to learn they had voted, and their ballot applications were all submitted by the same individual. If you believe that only happened to a handful of individuals in Houston and not nationwide... well...
The problem is that without the ability to locate and interview voters, it is nearly impossible to detect. Signature matching can help somewhat, but only a bit.
(One sign of this kind of operation are the urban housing complexes - large, city-block-sized apartment buildings - with Saddam-Hussein-like 95%+ turnout.)
That's fine. That kind of thing should be in the report.Keegan99 said:
The most common tactic was probably fraudulent voting by mail. There were real citizens and real ballots, but the real citizens did not complete the real ballots.
Look at what the investigator in Harris County uncovered - citizens surprised to learn that had voted, and their ballot applications were all submitted by the same individual. If you believe that only happened to a handful of individuals in Houston and not nationwide... well...
The problem is that without the ability to locate and interview voters, it is nearly impossible to detect. Signature matching can help somewhat, but only a bit.
One sign of this kind of operation are the urban housing complexes - large, city-block-sized apartment buildings - with Saddam-Hussein-like 95%+ turnout.
I bet they find absentee ballots that weren't mailed out (no folds).
Sure. They may have gotten sloppy when scaling it up.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
In Maricopa County, it was really quite easy. Runbeck Election Service is there is Tempe. All of the mail in ballots were created by them including the envelopes with the voter's address. Runbeck assigned that voter with a barcode on the outer envelope. The postal service delivered the returned mail in ballots to them for scanning for that bar code to mark off which ballots they had sent out were returned and which were not returned. IOW they knew which infrequent voters had not voted yet.Keegan99 said:
Sure. They may have gotten sloppy when scaling it up.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
Jan Bryant testified that ballots were delivered up to ten days after the election from Runbeck to the counting center. She further testified that the election officials at the counting center kept thinking they were almost done only to have more ballots arrive. She marveled that no on knew how many ballots were outstanding. But Runbeck knew. They just didn't tell the election officials at the counting center.
Yes, you would think so, but I don't believe that they always think things through OR they have evidence in their own state.FriscoKid said:
So about PA auditing their election????
You would have to think that they know something about how things are going to turn out in the AZ audit, otherwise this just looks stupid. If AZ shows zero fraud then these other states are going to have zero public support for an audit in their own states.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
This is the major red flag to me. It's not hard if you have the voter databases to target infrequent voters to generate additional "votes."aggiehawg said:In Maricopa County, it was really quite easy. Runbeck Election Service is there is Tempe. All of the mail in ballots were created by them including the envelopes with the voter's address. Runbeck assigned that voter with a barcode on the outer envelope. The postal service delivered the returned mail in ballots to them for scanning for that bar code to mark off which ballots they had sent out were returned and which were not returned. IOW they knew which infrequent voters had not voted yet.Keegan99 said:
Sure. They may have gotten sloppy when scaling it up.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
Jan Bryant testified that ballots were delivered up to ten days after the election from Runbeck to the counting center. She further testified that the election officials at the counting center kept thinking they were almost done only to have more ballots arrive. She marveled that no on knew how many ballots were outstanding. But Runbeck knew. They just didn't tell the election officials at the counting center.
Clockwork Orange comes to mindTrek Strategy said:
IMHO, there are too many "hanging from trees" references and I believe that's outdated punishment. They should be tied to a chair and forced to watch "The View" 24/7 for a lifetime. ..
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Exactly. Now I can't tell how the Runbeck serviced Fulton County other than printing their mail in ballots in conjunction with the county and Dominion. by that I mean I don't know if they received the returning ballots from the postal service to run them through their scanners to compare those two lists. Nor do I know if Runbeck was contracted to handle the drop boxes in Fulton County, although that is a service they offer.Quote:
This is the major red flag to me. It's not hard if you have the voter databases to target infrequent voters to generate additional "votes."
But one thing is very clear to me at this point. Our elections have been thoroughly privatized. Private entities are running our elections, not state and local election officials. Centralized counting is pandora's box.
I think what happened is they were surprised by the overwhelming turnout for Trump, and hadn't prepared enough fake ballots. They had to come up with more, and across the country different teams were scrambling to do that in the middle of the night (and days following) and THAT is where they got sloppy.Keegan99 said:
Sure. They may have gotten sloppy when scaling it up.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
I have not been keeping up lately so apologies if it has been discussed..
Has there been any progress made on states or counties that circumvented existing voting laws under the guise of COVID? Shouldn't that eliminate votes cast unjustly?
Has there been any progress made on states or counties that circumvented existing voting laws under the guise of COVID? Shouldn't that eliminate votes cast unjustly?
Yep. They were surprised by how far off the polling was and the 3am pause was to recalibrate the operation and figure out how many folks didn't show up to vote in person so they could go create mail in ballots for them in the coming days.Tailgate88 said:I think what happened is they were surprised by the overwhelming turnout for Trump, and hadn't prepared enough fake ballots. They had to come up with more, and across the country different teams were scrambling to do that in the middle of the night (and days following) and THAT is where they got sloppy.Keegan99 said:
Sure. They may have gotten sloppy when scaling it up.
One could envision Joe Harvester submitting a stack of 100 applications and the helpful clerk short-circuiting the process and just handing Joe Harvester 100 ballots. Or Joe Harvester just being given the ballots and later submitting the ballots and applications concurrently.
This has a Don Quixote tilting at windmills feel but hats off for the effort.
LinkQuote:
Washington State Rep. Robert Sutherland traveled to Arizona to visit the forensic audit center in June.
On Monday Sutherland announced public hearings will be held be scheduled regarding election integrity issues in WASHINGTON STATE.
Robert posted his announcement on Facebook earlier this week.
AZ State Senator Wendy Rogers posted this on Telegram on Wednesday.
Washington is one of those states where mail-in voting was implemented and no Republican has won state-wide office since that time.
I'm sure they do, but not much. The audit folks can't afford to chat with anyone, not even a little. However, since they are human, I'm sure a few folks know some script. Most Dems believe the Right is evil and their side is virtuous above all. As such, the Dems very likely have spies and corrupt (redundant) folks everywhere around the audit to "investigate".FriscoKid said:
They have to know something.
I strongly suspect Maricopa County won't have to comply with any subpoenas from any judge, anywhere. Democrats rarely seem to have to reply to subpoenas, and when they don't, no one suffers.
And since the routers and passwords aren't available, the Dems will use that as a means to say the audit was incomplete and unprofessional.
The touted "professional" auditors, Pro V&V and SLI didn't see routers either. And it is unclear if they were given the passwords or had Dominion employees there to log in for them.Quote:
And since the routers and passwords aren't available, the Dems will use that as a means to say the audit was incomplete and unprofessional.
So to that contention, neither were those reviews complete nor professional.
will25u
Joined:
Aug 9, 2010
Posts:
20,844
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BREAKING : A Federal judge upholds new voting law in Georgia, declines Democrats attempt to block portions of new voting law them from taking effect a week before runoff elections for state legislative seats
— 🚨Patriot news (@Grahmptri) July 7, 2021
well, if it is a violation of both letter and spirit, once the monies are donated to the local governments, if those governments followed their own rules and violated the agreements, wouldn't they have the legal grounds to not return the monies since the contract would then require an illegal act to occur? I thought a legal contract is unenforceable if it violates the law? Guess I don't see how the "claw back" works.VegasAg86 said:aggiehawg said:No it was a violation of both letter and spirit. Hiding behind the terms "charity" and "nonpartisan" which few of them are, they work to subvert election laws and elections.VegasAg86 said:
Whether they used Facebook data or not, their "non-partisan" get out the vote efforts seem to have been limited to democrat areas. Certainly a violation of the intent of the rules for non-profit status, if not the letter.
Wow, from will25u's Just the News link:Quote:
"You know, the thing that happened with CTCL is with those agreements, if those municipalities did not follow what was in those grant agreements, they had the authority to claw back those dollars," she explained, arguing that it would have been different had the cities "been given money and had the authority to use it how they saw fit."
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/sandy-juno-wisconsin-election-clerk-2020-election
Surely dictating election rules isn't allowed.
Ok, this depends on honest judges, which has proven to be impossible...
Remind me. What's the excuse for not turning over the router passwords?
MR Gadsden said:
Remind me. What's the excuse for not turning over the router passwords?
This BS:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_60989401e4b0ae3c687ffc44
Additionally, the county claims to not ever having been given the administrator passwords. Also likely BS or they are admitting that they don't control their voting system.
iirc, county claims they provided all their passwords and that they never had admin or root passwords for the machines or devices.
So who is the administrator and who really ran the election if only Dominion had admin passwords? Why didn't county IT guys have admin passwords for their own machines or devices? How did the other auditors have a quick clean opinion without inspecting admin rights, configurations, and logs if no one at the county knew the admin passwords? Why won't Dominion provide them to the county after they were requested for an audit by the state senate?
So who is the administrator and who really ran the election if only Dominion had admin passwords? Why didn't county IT guys have admin passwords for their own machines or devices? How did the other auditors have a quick clean opinion without inspecting admin rights, configurations, and logs if no one at the county knew the admin passwords? Why won't Dominion provide them to the county after they were requested for an audit by the state senate?
Mornin' ladies and gents.oh no said:
iirc, county claims they provided all their passwords and that they never had admin or root passwords for the machines or devices.
So who is the administrator and who really ran the election if only Dominion had admin passwords? Why didn't county IT guys have admin passwords for their own machines or devices? How did the other auditors have a quick clean opinion without inspecting admin rights, configurations, and logs if no one at the county knew the admin passwords? Why won't Dominion provide them to the county after they were requested for an audit by the state senate?
I need some help (no comment here). Let's assume for second Maricopa County is telling the truth, and they have no passwords for the routers. Other than the fact the county has been lying their ass off and are 100% incompetent with malice aforethought, would the county residents have standing to suit the crap out of the county, even though it's their own money?
fasthorse05 said:Mornin' ladies and gents.oh no said:
iirc, county claims they provided all their passwords and that they never had admin or root passwords for the machines or devices.
So who is the administrator and who really ran the election if only Dominion had admin passwords? Why didn't county IT guys have admin passwords for their own machines or devices? How did the other auditors have a quick clean opinion without inspecting admin rights, configurations, and logs if no one at the county knew the admin passwords? Why won't Dominion provide them to the county after they were requested for an audit by the state senate?
I need some help (no comment here). Let's assume for second Maricopa County is telling the truth, and they have no passwords for the routers. Other than the fact the county has been lying their ass off and are 100% incompetent with malice aforethought, would the county residents have standing to suit the crap out of the county, even though it's their own money?
Standing isnt a reliable standard anymore.
Featured Stories
See All
LIVE: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist
68:03
8h ago
3.9k
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Keys to the Game: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist