Quote:

---

Your point would make sense but for one problem: they got to the supposed 74,000 difference by comparing apples and oranges. It's not true to say there were 74,000 more mail-in ballots received than mailed out. The "received" number he used includes all early votes, both mail-in and in-person. He was also comparing reports from two different time periods so it's no surprise they do not match.

I guess to the auditor's credit they're somewhat walked the claim back by relying on the age-old adage of "I'm not claiming anything, I'm just asking questions"

---

Well, isn't that somewhat of an important piece of information. Jeez

Is it too much to ask for ANYONE to get basic facts right? It is like trying to get answers from 3 year olds when you happen upon something broken in the house.

Honest question. Do they not have any totals other than what they claim are the vote counts? Mail in ballots, early votes, printed in-person ballots, etc?

Quote:

---

Honest question. Do they not have any totals other than what they claim are the vote counts? Mail in ballots, early votes, printed in-person ballots, etc?

---

This reminds me of the Iowa Caucus clusterf***. How hard can it be to count heads of people standing in a corner? Apparently pretty hard for Democrats.

Wait a second here....can someone help me understand this?

Are these currently the accepted facts:

• Runbeck created, folded, stuffed, and emailed (X) number of ballots based on (1) a count ordered, and (2) tied to a voter db where one voter got one ballot
• MCB had someone (Runbeck or other) print ballots for in-person voting (early voting and election day)
• MCB claims early voting ballots and mail in ballots were counted together
• The auditors saw these numbers and made the statement assuming the 74,000 early votes were MIB's when they weren't

Before I go down another rabbit hole, it would be nice to know the facts as we have been told. On the surface, what kind of idiot would mix those two? Since they have totally different chain of custody documentation. Can't wait to hear how they blocked people who received a mail in ballot from voting in person as well.

The fact that the county can't reconcile anything to control totals, appropriate logs and records aren't kept and in some cases weren't provided and forensic auditors can't figure it out because your systems and processes are insecure and designed to be convoluted and irreconcilable ARE the audit findings and the audit recommendations will include fixing all that BULL ****.

Secure voter registration rolls, secure voting machines, tabulations, and data transfer, secure chain of custody, signature verification, photo ID, etc. ---things that are auditable, would help with election integrity and not disenfranchise voters. This is not voter suppression. This is not Jim Crow 2.0. Meanwhile, fighting tooth and nail against audits, fighting tooth and nail against anti-fraud controls and security, silencing those who ask questions and want answers - this is why people are angry. This is why there are conspiracy theories. Why don't the democrarxists understand that? If they truly have an unprecedented 81 million voter mandate to move towards socialism/ global great reset / America last policies - if that's really what the people want, then let the questions be answered and let it be proven.

Who is going to be the first person to grow a pair here?

The very next time someone says stupid **** like:

"A 3rd party touched a machine it must be destroyed"
"You can't have the routers because it puts law enforcement at risk"
etc.etc.etc.

Say on record: What the eff does it matter? They don't know who voted, if they were legal voters, how many times they voted, how they voted, if the votes submitted were theirs, if voter information or votes were ever kept secure. who was connected to voting machines at any time. who accessed any network devices because logs were wiped, and on and on and on

Why do they just now give a **** about integrity of ballots or devices? Haven't followed laws and practices to this point....what start now.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Wait a second here....can someone help me understand this?

Are these currently the accepted facts:

• Runbeck created, folded, stuffed, and emailed (X) number of ballots based on (1) a count ordered, and (2) tied to a voter db where one voter got one ballot
• MCB had someone (Runbeck or other) print ballots for in-person voting (early voting and election day)
• MCB claims early voting ballots and mail in ballots were counted together
• The auditors saw these numbers and made the statement assuming the 74,000 early votes were MIB's when they weren't

Before I go down another rabbit hole, it would be nice to know the facts as we have been told. On the surface, what kind of idiot would mix those two? Since they have totally different chain of custody documentation. Can't wait to hear how they blocked people who received a mail in ballot from voting in person as well.

---

I wouldn't call this a statement of fact. It may not have been an assumption. They may have made that statement intentionally to get a response as I have already hypothesized. They may have known they were co-mingled.

oh no said:

---

The fact that the county can't reconcile anything to control totals, appropriate logs and records aren't kept and in some cases weren't provided and forensic auditors can't figure it out because your systems and processes are insecure and designed to be convoluted and irreconcilable ARE the audit findings and the audit recommendations will include fixing all that BULL ****.

Secure voter registration rolls, secure voting machines, tabulations, and data transfer, secure chain of custody, signature verification, photo ID, etc. ---things that are auditable, would help with election integrity and not disenfranchise voters. This is not voter suppression. This is not Jim Crow 2.0. Meanwhile, fighting tooth and nail against audits, fighting tooth and nail against anti-fraud controls and security, silencing those who ask questions and want answers - this is why people are angry. This is why there are conspiracy theories. Why don't the democrarxists understand that? If they truly have an unprecedented 81 million voter mandate to move towards socialism/ global great reset / America last policies - if that's really what the people want, then let the questions be answered and let it be proven.

---

This is exactly right. The fact that Maricopa County is responding in the way they are demonstrates that they AT THE VERY MINIMUM, are vociferously and emphatically defending a system that is flawed. It casts an incredible amount of suspicion on their agenda.

Thank you.

I can only parrot what most of you have already said. Counting is hard.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Your point would make sense but for one problem: they got to the supposed 74,000 difference by comparing apples and oranges. It's not true to say there were 74,000 more mail-in ballots received than mailed out. The "received" number he used includes all early votes, both mail-in and in-person. He was also comparing reports from two different time periods so it's no surprise they do not match.

I guess to the auditor's credit they're somewhat walked the claim back by relying on the age-old adage of "I'm not claiming anything, I'm just asking questions"

---

Well, isn't that somewhat of an important piece of information. Jeez

Is it too much to ask for ANYONE to get basic facts right? It is like trying to get answers from 3 year olds when you happen upon something broken in the house.

Honest question. Do they not have any totals other than what they claim are the vote counts? Mail in ballots, early votes, printed in-person ballots, etc?

---

Yes, they do know the actual totals. Somewhere north of 2mm MIB were actually requested and less than 2mm were returned (I don't remember the precise number off the top of my head).

It is not accurate to say these things were just combined and no one has any idea what kind of ballots were received as some are implying here. The conflation came from the auditor's statements, not the actual records. The auditor apparently did not understand the purpose of the two types of reports they tried to rely upon, which are not reports that differentiate between in-person ballots and MIB. That DOES NOT mean that information is unavailable - just that the info is not on the particular reports referenced by the auditor.

ETA: yes, you are precisely right that it is important info. Again, it would have been nice if the auditor understood it before "asking questions"

MASAXET said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Your point would make sense but for one problem: they got to the supposed 74,000 difference by comparing apples and oranges. It's not true to say there were 74,000 more mail-in ballots received than mailed out. The "received" number he used includes all early votes, both mail-in and in-person. He was also comparing reports from two different time periods so it's no surprise they do not match.

I guess to the auditor's credit they're somewhat walked the claim back by relying on the age-old adage of "I'm not claiming anything, I'm just asking questions"

---

Well, isn't that somewhat of an important piece of information. Jeez

Is it too much to ask for ANYONE to get basic facts right? It is like trying to get answers from 3 year olds when you happen upon something broken in the house.

Honest question. Do they not have any totals other than what they claim are the vote counts? Mail in ballots, early votes, printed in-person ballots, etc?

---

Yes, they do know the actual totals. Somewhere north of 2mm MIB were actually requested and less than 2mm were returned (I don't remember the precise number off the top of my head).

It is not accurate to say these things were just combined and no one has any idea what kind of ballots were received as some are implying here. The conflation came from the auditor's statements, not the actual records. The auditor apparently did not understand the purpose of the two types of reports they tried to rely upon, which are not reports that differentiate between in-person ballots and MIB. That DOES NOT mean that information is unavailable - just that the info is not on the particular reports referenced by the auditor.

ETA: yes, you are precisely right that it is important info. Again, it would have been nice if the auditor understood it before "asking questions"

---

Have a hard time understanding how you are so much more in tune with the audit, than the actual people completing the audit. Just parroting the lib talking points?

Quote:

---

On January 16, 2019, with the support of the County Recorder, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved directing the County Manager to form a work group to gather and compile information necessary to prepare a set of recommendations regarding the structure, staffing and technology resources of the Elections Department. In a press release on the same date, "Today's vote comes after many months of discussion about how the Maricopa County Elections Department can best serve the voters of our community," said Recorder Adrian Fontes. "In conjunction with the Board of Supervisors and the leadership of Chairman Gates, I look forward to a top-to-bottom review of the needs of the department, including a state-of-the-art tabulation system to better process ballots. Only through a complete assessment of all options for administration of elections, and well formulated recommendations by the committee, will Maricopa County pave the way for the future of this vital function of government."

---

The report from May 2019 is HERE

Sure looked good on paper. Execution left something to be desired, though.

This has been posted before but certain people really need to watch it. Runbeck creates, prints, sends out the ballots for Maricopa County. The USPS returns the received ballots back to Runbeck, not election officials.

Quote:

---

Yes, they do know the actual totals. Somewhere north of 2mm MIB were actually requested and less than 2mm were returned (I don't remember the precise number off the top of my head).

---

These numbers should be fully vetted and publicly offered like a public company's financial reports.

Quote:

---

It is not accurate to say these things were just combined and no one has any idea what kind of ballots were received as some are implying here. The conflation came from the auditor's statements, not the actual records. The auditor apparently did not understand the purpose of the two types of reports they tried to rely upon, which are not reports that differentiate between in-person ballots and MIB. That DOES NOT mean that information is unavailable - just that the info is not on the particular reports referenced by the auditor.

---

Since they are not publicly available, and there are irregularities, it is on the public servants who are put in charge of the process to provide them and clarity as to what happened and how.

Quote:

---

ETA: yes, you are precisely right that it is important info. Again, it would have been nice if the auditor understood it before "asking questions" If the people in charge of the election could provide information about the election as it is there responsibility, AND be prepared to answer questions honestly and openly when questioned.

---

FIFY

Again, if this election was +90% above board, it should have been easy to resolve all of this long ago.

MASAXET said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Your point would make sense but for one problem: they got to the supposed 74,000 difference by comparing apples and oranges. It's not true to say there were 74,000 more mail-in ballots received than mailed out. The "received" number he used includes all early votes, both mail-in and in-person. He was also comparing reports from two different time periods so it's no surprise they do not match.

I guess to the auditor's credit they're somewhat walked the claim back by relying on the age-old adage of "I'm not claiming anything, I'm just asking questions"

---

Well, isn't that somewhat of an important piece of information. Jeez

Is it too much to ask for ANYONE to get basic facts right? It is like trying to get answers from 3 year olds when you happen upon something broken in the house.

Honest question. Do they not have any totals other than what they claim are the vote counts? Mail in ballots, early votes, printed in-person ballots, etc?

---

Yes, they do know the actual totals. Somewhere north of 2mm MIB were actually requested and less than 2mm were returned (I don't remember the precise number off the top of my head).

It is not accurate to say these things were just combined and no one has any idea what kind of ballots were received as some are implying here. The conflation came from the auditor's statements, not the actual records. The auditor apparently did not understand the purpose of the two types of reports they tried to rely upon, which are not reports that differentiate between in-person ballots and MIB. That DOES NOT mean that information is unavailable - just that the info is not on the particular reports referenced by the auditor.

ETA: yes, you are precisely right that it is important info. Again, it would have been nice if the auditor understood it before "asking questions"

---

If this is the case, then why didn't the auditors know this? Was it because the county did not provide them with the correct information or are you saying they are not competent and thorough. Because what I saw in the hearing sure sounded like people with great amount of care and thoroughness in what they are doing.

Also, you seem to be critical of them asking the question regarding the 74,000. If it was not clear and the information in the reports does not explain the numbers, they were going to have to ask the question for the county to explain at some point. I watched the whole committee hearing. They seemed to be very careful to not draw any conclusions or make any accusations (which is what the final audit report should do). How is it a criticism to say that the numbers don't match and it needs to be explained?

The conflation as you put it could just as easily be blamed on what information was given and how it was presented to the auditors by the county. You say they are looking at reports that do not differentiate the votes. You can draw the conclusion then that they were not given the information that DOES differentiate that you suggest IS available. Why wasn't this information given to the auditors by the county?

The county has been openly hostile to the audit. It would be entirely rational to believe that the county would sabotage or try to discredit the audit by not being honest and forthcoming with information. This episode about the 74,000 would look exactly like a setup to discredit if there was differentiating information available to the county that was not given or explained to the auditors. Instead they have to go publicly to ask the questions and look how quick Maricopa was to respond with an answer that makes the auditors look bad. Coincidence? I do not have all of the information regarding the dissemination of the data on the 74,000 so I am only hypothesizing an explanation as an alternate to the idea that the auditors are incompetent which I think is a stretch given what we have seen about their procedures.

Hawg, I don't recall seeing it released anywhere, but has Runbeck directly released a tabulation of MIB's returned? I believe the only numbers we have are sourced from the county.

American Hardwood said:

---

Hawg, I don't recall seeing it released anywhere, but has Runbeck directly released a tabulation of MIB's returned? I believe the only numbers we have are sourced from the county.

---

Not that I am aware of. Runbeck has been keeping a low profile and after watching that short youtube about their claims that fraud under their system is impossible, I don't blame them. Runbeck CEO directly contradicts what MCBOS is saying about the MIBs being combined with early voting, or at least he implies that. The MIBs are handled exclusively by Runbeck. That also jives with the testimony of Jan Bryant and others about more ballots arriving from Runbeck to the counting center for up to a week or more after the election.

Quote:

---

Runbeck Election Services Inc. is pleased to announce a new layer in cybersecurity to protect the election process. Adding to its existing state-of-the art election printing, software and hardware services, Runbeck is partnering with CyberDefenses, an industry leader in cyber security, to provide more defenses to the election process. The ground-breaking service provides; cybersecurity reviews, mitigation and 24/7 monitoring, tailored to the election and public-sector client.

The new cybersecurity offering is designed to identify areas of vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, thus securing management of all highly sensitive election data. The additional protection will provide a level of network and data security beyond what jurisdictions can currently provide. Combined with Runbeck's extensive election experience CyberDefenses innovative approach will enhance a jurisdictions' security throughout their entire network and staff with simplicity and ease.

The targeting of elections is taking a costly toll on public agencies and elections themselves as they come under attack across a range of IT infrastructures both at home and abroad. A good cybersecurity program will protect the confidentiality and integrity of the data entrusted to each jurisdiction by ensuring a high security level in all aspects of the organization from networking to staffing. According to a half-year analysis by ITRC of 2017 US data breaches, hacking was the primary method of attack. Hacking (which includes phishing, ransomware/malware and skimming) was involved in 63% of all identified breaches. Runbeck's innovative approach identifies, monitors and mitigates these possibilities. It also improves the staff's understanding and ability to ensure security.

About Runbeck Election Services
Runbeck Election Services is a full service, commercial print company focusing on the elections industry since 1972 with headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona and a facility in Denver, Colorado. We are one of the nation's leading election and high-integrity print and mail professionals, partnering with cities, counties and states to provide an unmatched election experience. For more information visit: www.runbeck.net.

---

August 2018 Press Release HERE.

captkirk said:

---

---

Is that Rose Tico?

Wonder if she new Bruce Ohr?

fasthorse05 said:

---

Good point.

Gracias. And no, I haven't had to deal with that situation, but life throws a lot of issues at folks.

---

Yes, it does, and just to be sure--my red face was not aimed at you, but instead at Baiers...

aggieforester05 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Is this the kraken? Or more of nothing? Feels like nothing. Not seeing anything going on.

---

The state elections director working for the most corrupt Democrat law firm in America is nothing?

---

Just a coincidence. Clearly.

Running my normal rat trails this AM and stumbled across something I had missed back in May regarding Antrim County. The ability to alter date and time stamps.

Quote:

---

DePerno announced that Lenberg found this weekend, per Exhibit 17, a significant "subset of the critical deficiencies in the security of the electronic voting systems used in Antrim County, Michigan for the November 3, 2020 election." Exhibit 17 also notes that "password enforcement policies on the EMS are substandard, they even allow the users to set purposefully 'weak' passwords as a feature."

One of the critical deficiencies highlighted by DePerno is the ability of the election workers "to set the time on a tabulator at any time in order to print paper tapes that show the appropriate date/time stamp. The technician/supervisor password enables the workers to have this capability." This is a significant issue because an election worker can potentially run extra ballots without detection "outside of the election window or after hours" to create ballots to produce a desired number of votes.

---

Quote:

---

DePerno also explained that the user name can appear as a default name (in this case, Ryan Smoth) and not the actual name of the election worker committing the fraudulent act. Thus, the admin user name and password can be "accessed by anyone" under the default name. Therefore, there is no personal accountability for the actions of the election workers who might engage in fraudulent activity.

---

Quote:

---

Lenberg writes in Exhibit 17, "The malicious actor initially makes an estimate [of] the number of fraudulent votes needed to win the election and programs for that scenario. However, often they need to add additional votes beyond the pre-planned fraud estimates, requiring the polls to be re-opened again to add additional fraudulent votes to achieve their objectives."

---

Link

Hawg, is Uncoverdc.com a good follow?

I've seen it quoted here more than once, but don't want to add every single thing I see.

And, Holy frickin' cow, you find stuff like this all the time. If just ONE of these articles/facts were found to be on the Republican side, it would be similar coverage to the JFK assassination. But there are dozens of facts and information suggesting incompetence, maladroit actions, and good old fashion conspiracy with hundreds, possibly thousands of people involved.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Hawg, is Uncoverdc.com a good follow?

I've seen it quoted here more than once, but don't want to add every single thing I see.

---

I don't follow them. I got to that piece from a link at Red State HERE

Red State has a regular feature "A.U.D.I.T." that I have found to be a good round up of what is happening in many states.

Who wants to bet the answer will be... NO.

PA AUDIT: The York County Board of Commissioners is currently meeting to discuss whether or not they will comply with Senator Mastriano's lawful request for materials needed to conduct a full forensic audit.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 21, 2021

will25u said:

---

Who wants to bet the answer will be... NO.

PA AUDIT: The York County Board of Commissioners is currently meeting to discuss whether or not they will comply with Senator Mastriano's lawful request for materials needed to conduct a full forensic audit.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 21, 2021

---

I bet the chances of the York County Board of Commissioners being 100% against transparency and integrity are quite high.

aggiehawg said:

---

Running my normal rat trails this AM and stumbled across something I had missed back in May regarding Antrim County. The ability to alter date and time stamps.

Quote:

---

DePerno announced that Lenberg found this weekend, per Exhibit 17, a significant "subset of the critical deficiencies in the security of the electronic voting systems used in Antrim County, Michigan for the November 3, 2020 election." Exhibit 17 also notes that "password enforcement policies on the EMS are substandard, they even allow the users to set purposefully 'weak' passwords as a feature."

One of the critical deficiencies highlighted by DePerno is the ability of the election workers "to set the time on a tabulator at any time in order to print paper tapes that show the appropriate date/time stamp. The technician/supervisor password enables the workers to have this capability." This is a significant issue because an election worker can potentially run extra ballots without detection "outside of the election window or after hours" to create ballots to produce a desired number of votes.

---

Quote:

---

DePerno also explained that the user name can appear as a default name (in this case, Ryan Smoth) and not the actual name of the election worker committing the fraudulent act. Thus, the admin user name and password can be "accessed by anyone" under the default name. Therefore, there is no personal accountability for the actions of the election workers who might engage in fraudulent activity.

---

Quote:

---

Lenberg writes in Exhibit 17, "The malicious actor initially makes an estimate [of] the number of fraudulent votes needed to win the election and programs for that scenario. However, often they need to add additional votes beyond the pre-planned fraud estimates, requiring the polls to be re-opened again to add additional fraudulent votes to achieve their objectives."

---

Link

---

At minimum Dominion equipment should be banned from use by all states and all employees be named so any employees moving to different companies immediately call those companies into question. For justice any employee found to have willfully contributed to any fraud should be charged, indicted and brought to trial.