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

a reply to: shooterbrody

The fact that the audit was completed is a victory for transparency.
The government needs more sunshine.

I agree! In some ways, just getting it done, and establishing a precedence for forensic audits, may be the greatest victory. It's one of those bells that cannot be un-rung.... or that cannot be unseen and unheard.

It's done (or just about).

Now we wait to see what it brings.

Well, this is curious:

Senator Karen Fann Tells Reporters She Will NOT Be Releasing Audit Counts on Monday

The Gateway Pundit also reported that on Monday or soon after a preliminary report will be released on the accuracy of the number of certified ballots.

On Saturday we confirmed with our sources that a preliminary report would be released early this week. This news did not come from Senator Fann.

** We want to make clear that we never reported that Senator Karen Fann would release a report this week.
We do not know where that rumor came from.

So, if I'm understanding all this correctly, GP reported that vote counts would be released Monday... but they did not report their source... Karen Fann, the president of the AZ Senate, unequivocally states that results will not be released on Monday... GP reports that they did not hear the results would be released from Karen Fann... But GP goes on to report that a preliminary report will be released sometime this week.

That's not confusing! At all!!!

It seems to me that Karen Fann is the only person with the authority to release any results. So who exactly does GP think is going to release the results/report?

And if this person is not officially authorized to do so, why should GP trust them? Why should WE trust them?

a reply to: Boadicea

And if this person is not officially authorized to do so, why should GP trust them? Why should WE trust them?

We shouldn't. We don't have to.

Mike Lindell Makes Major Cyber Symposium Announcement

a reply to: Boadicea


Since the audit team returned the ballots to the county, complete with accurate chain of custody documents for each box, wouldn't that mean that the county also now knows the actual ballot count?

Has there been any statements by the county since receiving the ballots?

a reply to: Boadicea

It would help if Senator Fann told us who to listen to, when it comes to audit results. Who's authorized to be a spokesperson.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Boadicea

We shouldn't. We don't have to.

Mike Lindell Makes Major Cyber Symposium Announcement

Thank you for posting the link!

This is brilliant. I love it. Invite anyone and everyone relevant to a symposium and hand out the evidence to each and every one for their own information and understanding, as well as whatever investigation they want to pursue, or second opinions they want to weigh in, or any other evaluation they want to consider.

Inviting not only the media and political critters, but also experts and foreign interested parties is especially brilliant. The Big Media can try to ignore it, but no one else will, and I don't think they can get away with calling it "fake news" and/or censoring it this time around...

So Lindell said around the 10th or 11th of August. I can't wait!

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I would think so, but perhaps not. I would imagine each box was resealed and relabeled with the number of ballots within, but I don't know if the vote tally would also be listed.

The Pink Shirts might know or have a pretty good idea though, which they might be sharing with the County, as well as with Hobbs.

ETA: And no, there has been no word from the County on this or anything since they declared they would not answer or respond to anything from anyone with the audit.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea

It would help if Senator Fann told us who to listen to, when it comes to audit results. Who's authorized to be a spokesperson.

As far as I know, Ken Bennett is still the designated spokesman for the audit. Senators have been speaking for themselves, and their duties as legislators with regards to the audit. But Ken Bennett is the only official spokesperson that I know of.

Fann may consider this established and known, but if she has to make such a correction, then obviously not. So I agree now would be a good time to clarify who the public should be listening to on the matter.

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you (or anyone else) have an account at azcentral?

They posted a subscribers only article an hour ago with that headline indicates it may contain interesting info on the subject.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you (or anyone else) have an account at azcentral?

They posted a subscribers only article an hour ago with that headline indicates it may contain interesting info on the subject.

No... but quite often I can access a cached version...

What's the title of the article?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you (or anyone else) have an account at azcentral?

They posted a subscribers only article an hour ago with that headline indicates it may contain interesting info on the subject.

No... but quite often I can access a cached version...

What's the title of the article?

I just noticed it started showing as arizona republic article in duck, now des moines register.

Guessing all are owned by same company?

The headline is the same on all.


How Arizona audit ballot recount keeps information secret


www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2021/06/28/how-arizona-audit-ballot-recount-keeps-information-secret/7659975002/

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The appointment of Electors is not an election, it's an appointment which is why the word 'appointment' is used.

And how is it that the people to be appointed is determined?

More gas lighting from CNN and Al Gore. I don't think they had the voting machines during that election and their wasn't foreign and domestic interference (fraud).

Democrats Drag Out a Clearly PANICKED Al Gore to Attack Arizona Audit as Officials Prepare to Release Preliminary Evaluation this Week (VIDEO)

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And how is it that the people to be appointed is determined?

By the Party leaders in each state, it's a political favoritism reward for party loyalty.

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

I just noticed it started showing as arizona republic article in duck, now des moines register.

Guessing all are owned by same company?

The headline is the same on all.

Yes -- the AZCentral website, the Arizona Republic newspaper, and the local NBC television station are all owned by Gannett.

How Arizona audit ballot recount keeps information secret

www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2021/06/28/how-arizona-audit-ballot-recount-keeps-information-secret/7659975002/

Thanks for posting the link. I just read the cached version, and it was written prior to the audit team leaving the Coliseum, and did not give any new info. Which you probably know already!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

I just noticed it started showing as arizona republic article in duck, now des moines register.

Guessing all are owned by same company?

The headline is the same on all.

Yes -- the AZCentral website, the Arizona Republic newspaper, and the local NBC television station are all owned by Gannett.

How Arizona audit ballot recount keeps information secret

www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2021/06/28/how-arizona-audit-ballot-recount-keeps-information-secret/7659975002/

Thanks for posting the link. I just read the cached version, and it was written prior to the audit team leaving the Coliseum, and did not give any new info. Which you probably know already!

Thank you!

Did not know what was in the article.

Just saw link on duck that said the article was posted 1 hour prior.

I have to follow rules on the phone I'm posting on.

One of them is not bypassing ANY type of security measure in ANY way.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And how is it that the people to be appointed is determined?

By the Party leaders in each state, it's a political favoritism reward for party loyalty.

And how is it determined as to WHO these appointed Electors will vote for?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And how is it determined as to WHO these appointed Electors will vote for?

Their party loyalty in most cases where there isn't a state requirement, unless they decide to be faithless if there isn't one.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: carewemust
Just an observation/comment,

Re: www.azmirror.com...

If the Arizona audit finds significant irregularities, the "Conspiracy Theorists" will suddenly become more reliable than "Experts", who bash conspiracy theorists.

What a shame the article itself doesn't allow comments...

You're right that some conspiracy theorists will be recognized at more reliable than the self-appointed and annointed "experts." But "conspiracy theory" is a pretty big umbrella term that includes Big Gov crap fed to the public. So when/if the whole truth is known, maybe -- just maybe -- much of what is now known as "conspiracy theory" will hopefully be recognized as deliberate disinfo and misinfo to distract and deflect from the true conspiracies.

If the Arizona audit shows significant irregularities, we'll have one more example of the media and experts being totally wrong in labelling a Republican/Trump supporter's beliefs an INCORRECT/FAR-FLUNG "conspiracy theory".

This is where being on the side we are, is a particularly easy place to reside. If nothing it found, we were already called all the names associated with that, and the laughing and pointing is largely over. But if something significant is found, then all hell will break loose and the one's who have been pointing and laughing will be busy deleting accounts and pretending to distance themselves from their empirical statements.

Not a bad place to be.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: tanstaafl
Their party loyalty in most cases where there isn't a state requirement, unless they decide to be faithless if there isn't one.

Wrong. Every State in the Union has established that the popular vote for President in their State determines who the Electors will vote for, although there is at least one, or maybe two that allow for partials - meaning, the electors can be divided between the 2 candidates.