What is your point?

Brunetto Latini said:

---

Decay said:

---

Oh look, Maricopa County posting their rebuttal. This should have actual information in it instead of conspiracy theories conjured by grifters who made off with $10 million.

---

---

Are you from the County?

Also they've been combative, dismissive, and you know, the people we're accusing of committing the election fraud. So uh, yeah great they put something out. It's 100 pages so I'll be back in a few days I guess.

Second page and I'm already a bit dubious.

Quote:

---

This continuous release of inaccurate information required the County to develop a website to combat misinformation: JustTheFacts.Vote.

---

Why exactly would the county be "required" to develop a website to combat misinformation?

Decay said:

---

Second page and I'm already a bit dubious.

Quote:

---

This continuous release of inaccurate information required the County to develop a website to combat misinformation: JustTheFacts.Vote.

---

Why exactly would the county be "required" to develop a website to combat misinformation?

---

It seems to me that they are saying that they were "required" to develop the website in order to combat all the misinformation that was being released by the Cyber-Ninjas and their ilk. If they had not developed the website, I guess the County was concerned that too many people would assume that the misinformation being released was accurate since nobody was refuting it.

Are you thinking they are suggesting there is some law or statute that forced them to develop the website?

So they felt like the claims needed to be refuted. That's not what they said. They said that the claims required them to do so.

It's an exaggeration. So you're out to refute false claims, inaccurate claims, and misleading claims and by page two you're already making sensational statements. It's playing the victim. It hurts the credibility of their argument.

That's what I'm thinking.

Well yeah but I'm being strictly clinical on my reading. They're out to bury dissent, not defend their election, and they're scumbags to boot. But I'm basing my criticism on what they put in the report.

Decay said:

---

Well yeah but I'm being strictly clinical on my reading. They're out to bury dissent, not defend their election, and they're scumbags to boot. But I'm basing my criticism on what they put in the report.

---

Fair enough. Following another trial so I haven't had time to read their "report" yet. But I also think I have heard most of their blather before

This is all so depressing.

Decay said:

---

Oh look, a rookie posting a rebuttal. This should be quite unbiased.

---

It's Maplethorpe's latest sock.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Decay said:

---

So they felt like the claims needed to be refuted. That's not what they said. They said that the claims required them to do so.

It's an exaggeration. So you're out to refute false claims, inaccurate claims, and misleading claims and by page two you're already making sensational statements. It's playing the victim. It hurts the credibility of their argument.

That's what I'm thinking.

---

"That's not what they said?" The whole report was written to refute those claims. That is exactly what they said.

And, it's no exaggeration. They did develop the website as a direct result of the "...continuous release of inaccurate information..." It sure didn't develop itself. Or, are you trying to say that they had no responsibility to the Maricopa County voters to correct the misinformation that was coming from all over? Because, that is exactly the responsibility of the Maricopa County Elections Department.

Seriously, I have a hard time understanding what you feel is being exaggerated.

---

Pretty damn simple.

If they had nothing to hide, then they don't hide it. They refused to cooperate with the state senate at all. They were hiding something by making that decision.

So if you were a VP of a company, and internal audit(AZ Senate has oversight) came to you wanting to take a look at a department and said that x department would not cooperate with you, would you...

A. No big deal, let's just listen to whatever x department says?
B. Think x department is being insubordinate and possibly hiding something?
C. Back up internal audit and get down to the brass tacks about what is going on in x department.

I think the AZ Senate has some blame here for not holding the county accountable for defying them.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Decay said:

---

So they felt like the claims needed to be refuted. That's not what they said. They said that the claims required them to do so.

It's an exaggeration. So you're out to refute false claims, inaccurate claims, and misleading claims and by page two you're already making sensational statements. It's playing the victim. It hurts the credibility of their argument.

That's what I'm thinking.

---

"That's not what they said?" The whole report was written to refute those claims. That is exactly what they said.

And, it's no exaggeration. They did develop the website as a direct result of the "...continuous release of inaccurate information..." It sure didn't develop itself. Or, are you trying to say that they had no responsibility to the Maricopa County voters to correct the misinformation that was coming from all over? Because, that is exactly the responsibility of the Maricopa County Elections Department.

Seriously, I have a hard time understanding what you feel is being exaggerated.

---

You misread.

I'm restating your idea: They felt like the claims needed to be refuted.

Then, I'm clarifying: They said the claims REQUIRED them to make the website. You described a situation where they felt like it was important to rebut claims.

THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

It's exaggeration. They have no obligation to shoot down accusations on a freaking website. No, they don't have to "correct misinformation". Liberals are control freaks who hate narratives that aren't controllable, so I know they felt like it was incredibly important to create a public campaign to smear the audit, defend themselves, etc etc.

will25u said:

---

So if you were a VP of a company, and internal audit(AZ Senate has oversight) came to you wanting to take a look at a department and said that x department would not cooperate with you, would you...

A. No big deal, let's just listen to whatever x department says?
B. Think x department is being insubordinate and possibly hiding something?
C. Back up internal audit and get down to the brass tacks about what is going on in x department.

I think the AZ Senate has some blame here for not holding the county accountable for defying them.

---

Not really an apt analogy.

This was not an internal audit, but an external audit. The expressed intent of the audit was to prove Maricopa County Elections Department was deficient in their duties. If the intent had been to simply review their methods and procedures, make sure they were being followed, and see how they might be improved, they would have started by reviewing their procedures and results of the audits that had already been performed. They didn't do this because that wasn't what they were there to do.

If I was a VP of a company that an outside firm came in and wanted to audit a department they had no experience with to prove said department wasn't doing its job, I would listen to what my reports were telling me. If pressed to comply with the external audit by my superiors, I would tell the department to comply with the auditors, but not to volunteer anything not specifically called for (I have actually been through such audits on several occasions, and had full support from my superiors for this advice).

How can you know if procedures were followed if they aren't cooperating?

One of the big things that came up was signatures. There were 1000s of mail in ballot envelopes that had no/miniscule markings in the signature block. Why did they not follow the law when they opened and presumably counted those ballots?

They misspelled "carpetbombing our tracks"...

Quote:

---

Where did you get the idea that they didn't cooperate with the auditors? Do you have any examples where the auditors asked for information and were refused? I know there were many claims of such, but the Correcting The Record report does a rather thorough job of documenting their compliance with what was being asked.

---

We got the idea because it was well documented they didn't. They never turned over the networking hardware, nor the images. As a matter of fact, it was well documented through the media and through the auditors during the process. Hell, the damn Maricopa Sheriff even injected himself into blocking the process.

There is a very simple fix to this........Everyone in the same room, under oath. and step through this. What I can say, with 100% certainty, is nobody knows what is legit and what is bull***** This is why a true accounting / audit needs to be done. The MCBoE is responsible for the election, its integrity, and its execution....therefor, they bare the responsibility of proof. It must also include an independent authority. The two "audits" performed by the companies who setup the hardware was a joke.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Where did you get the idea that they didn't cooperate with the auditors? Do you have any examples where the auditors asked for information and were refused? I know there were many claims of such, but the Correcting The Record report does a rather thorough job of documenting their compliance with what was being asked.

---

We got the idea because it was well documented they didn't. They never turned over the networking hardware, nor the images. As a matter of fact, it was well documented through the media and through the auditors during the process. Hell, the damn Maricopa Sheriff even injected himself into blocking the process.

There is a very simple fix to this........Everyone in the same room, under oath. and step through this. What I can say, with 100% certainty, is nobody knows what is legit and what is bull***** This is why a true accounting / audit needs to be done. The MCBoE is responsible for the election, its integrity, and its execution....therefor, they bare the responsibility of proof. It must also include an independent authority. The two "audits" performed by the companies who setup the hardware was a joke.

---

I guess you are trying to say it is so well documented that actual documentation isn't required? If you can show some documentation, please do.

As I understand it, most of this "documentation" consisted of tweets from anybodies reporting rumors and half-truths. It's interesting that these rumors and half-truths spread like wildfire, but I don't think the following has been posted here before:

Quote:

---

On September 17, 2021, over eight months after the subpoenas were originally issued and before the issuance of Cyber Ninjas' report, the County and Senate negotiated an agreement to appoint a special master to review the County's router logs, and the Senate confirmed that the County was in full compliance with all issued subpoenas

---

That's right, three and a half months ago, all parties involved agreed that the County was in FULL compliance with ALL subpoenas. Funny how the Cyber Ninjas' failed to mention this when they claimed otherwise (well, not actually funny, since the Cyber Ninjas' never actually said the County didn't comply, they just implied that they didn't). It is somewhat funny that you can still hear echos of "THEY DIDN'T COMPLY!" long after the Senate confirmed that they did.

will25u said:

---

So if you were a VP of a company, and internal audit(AZ Senate has oversight) came to you wanting to take a look at a department and said that x department would not cooperate with you, would you...

A. No big deal, let's just listen to whatever x department says?
B. Think x department is being insubordinate and possibly hiding something?
C. Back up internal audit and get down to the brass tacks about what is going on in x department.

I think the AZ Senate has some blame here for not holding the county accountable for defying them.

---

What internal audit?

Not only was it not an internal audit, it wasn't even an actual audit. It was a bunch of partisan hacks who knew nothing about the subject matter looking for anything to confirm what they wanted to find.

aggiehawg said:

---

Decay said:

---

So they felt like the claims needed to be refuted. That's not what they said. They said that the claims required them to do so.

It's an exaggeration. So you're out to refute false claims, inaccurate claims, and misleading claims and by page two you're already making sensational statements. It's playing the victim. It hurts the credibility of their argument.

That's what I'm thinking.

---

Maricopa County election officials were given every opportunity to participate in the audit, appear before the state senate to refute or explain abnomalies in the data. They flat out refused to give either refutations (with back-up data) nor explanations.

So at this late date, Maricopa County election officials have the credibility of a gnat.

---

They complied completely with the real audits.

Decay said:

---

Brunetto Latini said:

---

Decay said:

---

Oh look, Maricopa County posting their rebuttal. This should have actual information in it instead of conspiracy theories conjured by grifters who made off with $10 million.

---

---

Are you from the County?

Also they've been combative, dismissive, and you know, the people we're accusing of committing the election fraud. So uh, yeah great they put something out. It's 100 pages so I'll be back in a few days I guess.

---

Are you saying that the Republicans were committing election fraud?

Remember that four of the five top Maricopa County Election Offificals are Republicans, not Democrats.

Watermelon Man said:

---

The more that comes out that the lying loser Trump knew the election wasn't stolen and was merely trying everything he could come up with to overturn a legitimate election, the worse it will look for whatever remains of the Republican party once all the stuff stops flying around after hitting the fan.

---

Trump and his campaign officials knew that they were in trouble well before the election. The polling, including their own, made it quite clear to them.

eric76 said:

---

will25u said:

---

So if you were a VP of a company, and internal audit(AZ Senate has oversight) came to you wanting to take a look at a department and said that x department would not cooperate with you, would you...

A. No big deal, let's just listen to whatever x department says?
B. Think x department is being insubordinate and possibly hiding something?
C. Back up internal audit and get down to the brass tacks about what is going on in x department.

I think the AZ Senate has some blame here for not holding the county accountable for defying them.

---

What internal audit?

Not only was it not an internal audit, it wasn't even an actual audit. It was a bunch of partisan hacks who knew nothing about the subject matter looking for anything to confirm what they wanted to find.

---

I think you misspelled witch hunt.

Please remove the thread cloggers (as Funky describes). Too much time and effort has been spent to have our work desecrated by trolls. Thanks.

Just need to make it like the old Q thread. Have a dedicated mocking thread so the election sleuthers can conspire in peace

BoerneAg11 said:

---

Just need to make it like the old Q thread. Have a dedicated mocking thread so the election sleuthers can conspire in peace

---

For you, please go and explore what the following acronyms mean (to put yourself in the know):

-CISA (2018 - )
-SEC+
-NET+
-CISSP
-TS/SCI with FS-Poly (for CEH+ admin)

Those are just a few of the reasons why the q thread was likely disbanded (or so it seems). Big Bro realized they weren't safe & sound...anywhere.

/No NDA broken

Don't get me wrong I think deleting it was unnecessary. A bunch of goobers playing inspector gadget trying to reincarnate JFK with sudoku puzzles wasn't hurting anyone.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Decay said:

---

So they felt like the claims needed to be refuted. That's not what they said. They said that the claims required them to do so.

It's an exaggeration. So you're out to refute false claims, inaccurate claims, and misleading claims and by page two you're already making sensational statements. It's playing the victim. It hurts the credibility of their argument.

That's what I'm thinking.

---

Maricopa County election officials were given every opportunity to participate in the audit, appear before the state senate to refute or explain abnomalies in the data. They flat out refused to give either refutations (with back-up data) nor explanations.

So at this late date, Maricopa County election officials have the credibility of a gnat.

---

They complied completely with the real audits.

---

LOL, delusional as usual.

BoerneAg11 said:

---

Don't get me wrong I think deleting it was unnecessary. A bunch of goobers playing inspector gadget trying to reincarnate JFK with sudoku puzzles wasn't hurting anyone.

---

It probably saved YOUR face if you were bashing it. Lots of fools bashing a thread with actual intel in it.

lol...morans