Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

This is not an actual.audit, it is sham from a biased source.

A waste of time and money....after a month what have they proved?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

The jokes on anyone who thinks this a legitimate audit that will actually go somewhere. Cyber Ninjas give me a break.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: jrod


"Recently about 90%+++ of your posts have been proven false...yet you ignore in this and continue to double, triple, quadruple down on those lies"



Can you name one?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: jrod


"Recently about 90%+++ of your posts have been proven false...yet you ignore in this and continue to double, triple, quadruple down on those lies"



Can you name one?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can't find one then?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

This is not an actual.audit, it is sham from a biased source.

A waste of time and money....after a month what have they proved?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

The jokes on anyone who thinks this a legitimate audit that will actually go somewhere. Cyber Ninjas give me a break.

Dems have tried to convince multiple judges that this is a sham audit.

Failed. Every. Time.

Even after dirty trick to force judge replacement.



But I agree, it would have been nice if dems hadn't put so much effort into keeping everyone in the dark.

Audit would have finished a long time ago.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

This is not an actual.audit...

Yes, it is. Per Oxford Dictionary:

noun
noun: audit; plural noun: audits

an official inspection of an individual's or organization's accounts, typically by an independent body.

verb
verb: audit; 3rd person present: audits; past tense: audited; past participle: audited; gerund or present participle: auditing

conduct an official financial examination of (an individual's or organization's accounts).

This is an official inspection ordered by the appropriate legal authority -- the Arizona Senate in accordance with their Constitutional mandated duties, responsibilities and powers -- of Maricopa County's election accounts, by independent contractors with expertise and/or specialties in the relevant fields.

It is, by definition, an audit.

...it is sham...

That's a mighty powerful word to just throw out with no explanation or expansion. How is this a sham? In what way? What should they be doing that they are not? What should they not be doing that they are doing?

...from a biased source.

The auditors in New Hampshire had also publicly expressed an opinion on election integrity before being chosen to conduct, and conducting, an audit in New Hampshire. Their results matched their previously expressed opinion. Do you likewise condemn those auditors as biased? Do you likewise condemn their conclusions based upon their previously expressed opinions? If not, why not? What is the difference or distinction?

A waste of time and money....

First and foremost, verifying and confirming election integrity (and/or the opposite) is never a waste of time or money. Equally significant, it's not your time and it's not your money, so not your choice. You can of course have an opinion, but that's all it is.

....after a month what have they proved?

We have no idea what they have or have not proved, because they have not told us, and will not tell us until they issue their final report with the conclusions. This is not new information. This has been clear since the gitgo.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Saying it in capital letters doesn't make it true. None of us know what they have or have not proven.

The jokes on anyone who thinks this a legitimate audit that will actually go somewhere. Cyber Ninjas give me a break.

The joke is on anyone who thinks they know anything one way or another. There is nothing to know... yet.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Annee

I am with you on this, I want sunshine to expose the corruption and whoever is guilty to be prosecuted...

Whats my expectation republicans will beat this drum into the mid terms and forget about it once that counting is done.

I hope to be wrong, but thats what experience tells me.

That, sadly, has been the path to follow for as long as I can remember. For just about all politicians.
Only a few have followed through, or even attempted to follow through once in office.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

This is not an actual.audit, it is sham from a biased source.

A waste of time and money....after a month what have they proved?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

The jokes on anyone who thinks this a legitimate audit that will actually go somewhere. Cyber Ninjas give me a break.

You understand this was enacted by the senate of the state of Arizona?
They would no more be "biased" than the house of representatives at the nations Capitol.
You do remember those "biased" impeachments enacted on purely partisan political lines?
For anyone to call "biased" now is a bit ironic, no?

All political dirty tricks have been "normalized" in the last 6 years.
You don't get to cheer one side when they do it and boo the other side for the same political shenanigans, at least not without getting called out for it.

a reply to: jrod

Who should do the audit then? The people who are accused of cheating?

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Where do you want to start? We can go as far back as the stupid tick tock stuff care was posting with all the sealed indictments.. Which of course was never true. I think the 90%++++ is understated..

Is there a deliberate attempt to derail the thread? To have it pulled? Are some folks getting that desperate to shut down any and all information about the audit? Especially as it closes in on completion... and the final report?

Because that's sure the direction some are now trying to take it. Not only is all the talk about another poster off-topic, it is against T&Cs. It is also off-topic to bring up other threads by other posters that have nothing at all to do with this thread and this topic.

This is a discussion forum where we are free to talk TO each other... not ABOUT each other. Specifically, about the Arizona Audit, and to an extent, other states conducting or considering audits. Especially those states modeling their audits on Arizona's audit. Any and all respectful and relevant comments, observations, critiques and criticism of the election audit(s) are welcome and appropriate. Anything else is not. Either start your own thread for your own discussion, send a PM, or find another place to address your thoughts. They are not welcome or appropriate here.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry ma'am, I guess people are just getting a little bored waiting for these audits to tell us something new.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the Republicans who are loyal to Trump instead of loyal to the people of Arizona.

The company they picked believes Trump should have won, the people looking at ballots believe Trump should have won.....how you do not see this as a biased sham is beyond me.

Are you intentionally being obtuse or just willfully ignorant?

a reply to: matafuchs

An unbiased source.

No one actually has been accused of cheating.

Trump is simply a sore losers and came up with that narrative. Sadly many elected officials are going along with it(because of Trump supporters donation stream) as are a minority of the Republican voters. I would like to think the vast majority of this country is smart enough to not believe a pathological liar that is a sore losers.

However the precedent this sets is alarming. Don't like the results of an election and are able to sucker your supporters to donating for legal challenges then start an ad campaign and try to get frivolous but highly publicized court cases on record to drag out the process of losing.

Trump lost, get over it. It should be no surprise that the person with the worst Gallup poll numbers lost his re-election bid.

The problem e lies with trying with unreasonable people.....but this is a shinning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

a reply to: jrod

So you believe the ONLY person EVER who has said a contest was invalid is 45?

Not HRC(still complaining)? Not Stacey Abrams(still complaining)?? Not, well, anyone who lost that was Progressive in 2018 or 2020? They have argued the election was stolen by Russia since 11/16....

To me this is not about Trump. It is about exposing the control the Progressives have and rigging elections.

If Trump had lost 10 million votes I could easily accept the fad was gone but he did not. Only POTUS in the last 30 years to garner more votes and he rose with minorities and women. The voting blocks the left uses.

Coincidence? Nope. Just good planning. I mean, you really think there is a media and social media blackout because of 45 because of 1/6? There was no insurrection. I mean. He was still in office so the description does not even fit.

As for Republican's loyal to Trump disenfranchising voters...bull#...they are fighting for the vote of all of those who voted for him to make sure those votes counted. I guess in your eyes those people do not count?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the Republicans who are loyal to Trump instead of loyal to the people of Arizona.

I have no idea if the Senate Republicans are loyal to Trump. I don't care. They have categorically stated that they will NOT try to use the results to decertify the election results or change the outcome in any way. They have further stated that the results of the audit will be used to inform and inspire election reform as necessary and proper, and in fulfillment of their Constitutional duties and powers.

I am one of those people of Arizona. I and many other of those people of Arizona want this audit performed. We want to know the results. We want our elections laws and processes reformed accordingly.

As far as we're concerned, they are being loyal to the people of Arizona, and the Constitution. Please do not presume to speak for the people of Arizona.

The company they picked believes Trump should have won, the people looking at ballots believe Trump should have won.....how you do not see this as a biased sham is beyond me.

Ahem. AGAIN: The New Hampshire audit was conducted by people who had previously stated publicly that there was no election fraud, and their conclusions fit their previously stated opinions. Why are you not making the same presumptions and accusations about that audit and its auditors? Why are you not calling those auditors biased and their audit a sham? What is the distinction/difference? Why are you using one standard for this audit/auditors and not applying the same standard to that audit/auditors?

a reply to: jrod

That's not remotely true

Hundreds of eyewitnesses have come forward and signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury to document many many different forms of election fraud and shenanigans that took place.

These statements have not been considered on their merits but have rather been blindly rejected by judges with a runaround claiming the plaintiffs have no standing to bring the case.

Of course you know all of this already so I will just wish you a nice day at this point.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: jrod

That's not remotely true

Hundreds of eyewitnesses have come forward and signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury to document many many different forms of election fraud and shenanigans that took place.

These statements have not been considered on their merits but have rather been blindly rejected by judges with a runaround claiming the plaintiffs have no standing to bring the case.

Of course you know all of this already so I will just wish you a nice day at this point.

And ZERO was accepted as proof - - by anyone.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, the Republicans who are loyal to Trump instead of loyal to the people of Arizona.

The company they picked believes Trump should have won, the people looking at ballots believe Trump should have won.....how you do not see this as a biased sham is beyond me.

Are you intentionally being obtuse or just willfully ignorant?

And they're getting rid of anyone that doesn't fall in line.

Just like Trump does.

a reply to: ATruGod

You're right, but there's nothing we can do about it!

a reply to: Annee