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

a reply to: shooterbrody

Guess they know something about the results that we don't?

Maybe... but I certainly hope not. No one should know. Everyone involved (and these two are most certainly NOT involved) has signed an NDA, so no one should be talking, and I wouldn't trust anyone who does. If they'll lie about not talking, they'll lie about whatever they talk about as well.

Even if they do know something, this kind of talk is not in any way supportive of the audit itself, or those who have put themselves out there to get it done and provide a full and complete report at its conclusion.

It strikes me as a betrayal of all the good people working damn hard to make it happen, at great expense to many of them -- financially, politically, socially, etc. They deserve more respect than this.

Maybe I'm taking this too personally... but it is what it is!

Sunshine is good... but I'll open that bathroom door after I'm done showering and dressing!

a reply to: Boadicea

Even with a state mandated order it may not be legal, or it may be legal for them to withhold. CISA requirements are considered part of national security so they trump any perceived duty or inference of ownership that may exist. Having authority over elections may not reach out to hardware if it is considered leased or lent or it contains information (like network configs) that could be considered federal government IP. It would come down to how Dominion is contracted and by whom.

Not saying it's right, but national security and things that are deemed as such have been beating constitutionality since at least WW2.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Boadicea

Even with a state mandated order it may not be legal, or it may be legal for them to withhold.

Well, unless and until the US Supreme Court rules one way or another, I suppose you're not wrong... but even that is debatable.

But the Constitution is very clear regarding each state's legislative Constitutional duty and authority.

CISA requirements are considered part of national security so they trump any perceived duty or inference of ownership that may exist.

Well, so think the Feds anyway! But, no, the powers granted to the feds by the states does not trump the rights of the states. The Feds do not have the power or authority to established agencies or programs that violate the clear separation of powers in the Constitution.

Having authority over elections may not reach out to hardware if it is considered leased or lent or it contains information (like network configs) that could be considered federal government IP. It would come down to how Dominion is contracted and by whom.

Then the contract with Dominion would necessarily be null and void if it operated outside the authority of the state legislature and the duly established election laws.

I fully expect the Senate to address this is future election reform legislation. I don't see how they can't!

Not saying it's right...

I get that

...but national security and things that are deemed as such have been beating constitutionality since at least WW2.

It has become a pattern. That's for sure!

originally posted by: Boadicea
Well, unless and until the US Supreme Court rules one way or another, I suppose you're not wrong... but even that is debatable.

You may find this interesting:

The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures. Source

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thank you for the link!

I'll check it out... and reserve further comment until I've done so...

a reply to: Boadicea

Check my PM before you follow that - Remember you are what you eat .... LoL

originally posted by: Boadicea
Thank you for the link!

I'll check it out... and reserve further comment until I've done so...

People are attributing a bit more authority to the States when it comes to elections than they actually have.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's in the constitution.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Boadicea

Even with a state mandated order it may not be legal, or it may be legal for them to withhold. CISA requirements are considered part of national security so they trump any perceived duty or inference of ownership that may exist. Having authority over elections may not reach out to hardware if it is considered leased or lent or it contains information (like network configs) that could be considered federal government IP. It would come down to how Dominion is contracted and by whom.

Not saying it's right, but national security and things that are deemed as such have been beating constitutionality since at least WW2.

I am also familiar with CISA, and don't think it is the issue here.

I believe the Senate has only asked for router logs for a limited time period around the election, and the logs only need to contain the IP end point addresses for the dominion machines that were specifically authorized by the court, and can be kept sealed.

Since the county is also claiming that the dominion machines, that do have network interfaces installed, were not connected to the internet, I would have expected the county to respond with 'there are no log records for the dominion machines during the election'.

The fact that they are putting up a fight over this doesn't make any sense to me unless they either know that the router logs do contain the dominion machines (in which case they are in a lot of trouble) or they are just putting up a fight as another delay tactic.

The county did not mention CISA/NIST, or even generic privacy concerns though, they said 'releasing the logs would harm law enforcement efforts'.

Audit attorneys don't appear to be stressed over this issue though. At the last hearing I watched, all parties were willing to delay any further action on that item until a future hearing.

Ninja's already have block level images of the dominion drives, so they already have what they need to determine if the machines thought they had a connection, and if anyone altered the local logs.

Router logs would only be neccessary to determine who the dominion machines were communicating with, IF ninjas determine that they were in fact connected to something.

It sounded like all parties at the hearing were willing to delay action on the router log subpoena until after ninjas completed their analysis of the dominion drives in the montana lab.

If all of the above is accurate (or close enough), then I am perfectly ok with delaying the router log decision until after they know if it is in fact necessary.

originally posted by: dashen
It's in the constitution.

That's what I quoted. What does it say?

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Boadicea

I have no idea who the hardware belongs too but they may not be legally able to turn over the routers and passwords without a government court order or authorization from CISA, doing so could be a violation of CISA/NIST guidelines depending on who owns and deploys the technology.

There is already a court order for them to provide the routers - and I'm not sure what the heck CISA might have to do with anything, its none of their frapping business.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's in the constitution.

If the Constitution was Black and White.

We wouldn't have Constitutional lawyers.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Boadicea

I have no idea who the hardware belongs too but they may not be legally able to turn over the routers and passwords without a government court order or authorization from CISA, doing so could be a violation of CISA/NIST guidelines depending on who owns and deploys the technology.

There is already a court order for them to provide the routers - and I'm not sure what the heck CISA might have to do with anything, its none of their frapping business.

Just for clarification, subpoena is for a limited portion of the router logs, not the routers themselves.

And all sides appeared to be ok with delaying action on this at the last hearing.

At one point the attorneys appeared to be discussing an option of letting the audit staff view the logs with county I.T. present instead of actually handing over the log files, and ninja attorney said they 'might' be ok with that, but then judge asked if they would all agree to wait on that until a future hearing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: dashen
"It's in the constitution."

That's what I quoted. What does it say?

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

True, but this only applies to elections for Reps and Senators.

The feds have ZERO authority over the appointment of Presidential Electors, except for specifying the TIME of choosing and DAY (singular) for giving their votes.

No matter. Once the fraud is exposed and the Rs retake the House and Senate next year in a massive landslide, we'll clean up the elections processes.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
The feds have ZERO authority over the appointment of Presidential Electors...

That isn't an election, we're discussing elections.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay, I've read it. But I'm not much clearer on the matter!

It's my understanding that the U.S. Congress has the Constitutional power and authority to set uniform standards and laws, in order to prevent the states from using their local elections to thwart either the Feds or other states, as well as particular candidates for federal office. And that any/all such laws would apply equally to all states, the purpose being to maintain fairness, uniformity and consistency among states in electing (federal) congress critters. Which is all fair enough and appropriate enough, so no criticisms here.

But... and... so... the U.S. Congress could make no laws that would impact how each state elects state/county/municipal officials and other local matters, nor how they conduct elections on a local level.

I could go off on all sorts of tangents from here... some probably more likely than others... but I guess that brings us back to a stalemate of sorts. The federal congress critters could pass pretty much anything and demand the states comply, but some/many/most states would take object to such mandates and it would end up in court for the Supreme Court to ultimately decide.

It's quite likely we will start seeing some test cases along these very lines.

a reply to: Boadicea

You're pretty much correct.

Congress can set the rules for all Federal Elections and the States would have to comply as per the Constitution (with the one noted caveat in the Clause). I do not think there is any relief available from the courts on this matter though I think some would try.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Router logs would only be neccessary to determine who the dominion machines were communicating with, IF ninjas determine that they were in fact connected to something.

It sounded like all parties at the hearing were willing to delay action on the router log subpoena until after ninjas completed their analysis of the dominion drives in the montana lab.

If all of the above is accurate (or close enough), then I am perfectly ok with delaying the router log decision until after they know if it is in fact necessary.

This has been my impression, or perhaps not even a full blown impression... more of a wondering if this is what's going on. But I wasn't sure if I was reading too much or too little into it all with my limited understanding and knowledge of the technicalities.

If it is, then I'm good with it too. No sense making a big fuss over something that isn't even necessary. If the auditors have reason to believe there was no internet connection or improper transfer/reception of data, then there is no reasonable suspicion, and no need to pursue it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's in the constitution.

If the Constitution was Black and White.

We wouldn't have Constitutional lawyers.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Boadicea

I do not think there is any relief available from the courts on this matter though I think some would try.

Yup! There's always a legal whore out there willing to try.... anything and everything... at least once...

Hence the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer...