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

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I surrender the argument on this insignificant detail.

But it was the whole point of your post. If it weren't I would have ignored it.
And you made it up.

Was NOT accurate regarding Trump push for election investigations (now called forensic audits) Trump continued the push for years after 2016. Everywhere.

Pretty sure there was executive order on topic.

Democrats refused.

a reply to: Phage

Now which is it?

Are you trying to claim that commission didn't request evidence specifically related to 2016 ballots?

They did, and links provided say so.

OR

Are you trying to claim that commission didn't specifically request the actual 'ballots' themselves?

In which case I surrender this insignificant point about semantics.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Are you trying to claim that commission didn't request evidence specifically related to 2016 ballots?

Sorry, not going to chase your goalposts.

You know that Democrats were not alone in not providing the voter registration data (not ballots) which were asked for. Right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Are you trying to claim that commission didn't request evidence specifically related to 2016 ballots?

Sorry, not going to chase your goalposts.

You know that Democrats were not alone in not providing the voter registration data (not ballots) which were asked for. Right?

Yes.

Some Republicans acted like democrats on this.

(Ignoring the 'registration data' part, because they asked for much more than that)



I say 'democrats', because while I do see some good Republicans on this issue, I have yet to run across a single democrat about whom I could say the same.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I remember this.

There was a constant theme for denial, though some objected to the commisioners type of "barrier voter policy" the overwhelming majority for the 15 states that did flat out deny was:
CA

"Let me reassure voters: I will not provide this commission with Californians' personal voter data.

CT

lacked assurances that the personal information gathered would be safeguarded.

DE

would not comply with the request for sensitive information, including birthdates, Social Security numbers and felony history.

DC

Its request for voter information, such as Social Security numbers, serves no legitimate purpose and only raises questions on its intent,"

KY

"As the commonwealth's secretary of state and chief election official, I do not intend to release Kentuckians' sensitive personal data to the federal government,"

ME

rejected the request, saying it's not clear the commission has the authority to keep records confidential.

MD

denied the request after receiving an opinion from Democratic Attorney General Brian Frosh, who said disclosure of the requested information is prohibited by law

MA

the state's voter registry is not a public record and information in it will not be shared with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

MN

"I will not hand over personal data on the nearly four million Minnesotans who are registered to vote,"

NM

will never release personally identifiable information for New Mexico voters that is protected by law, including Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

ND

Republican Jaeger noted that North Dakota does not have voter registration and state law forbids the state from releasing details about voters.

SC

"release of voter data to anyone who is not a registered South Carolina voter is not permitted by state law."

(but making things even worse, not only were republicans responsible for the denial but ALSO in circumventing state law by:

the state Republican Party purchased both the statewide file and an updated file on voters in the 5th Congressional District — following a June special election — for about $2,900. It sent the information to the national GOP, state director Hope Walker said. The state party will send the information to the Trump administration whenever it's requested, she said.

TN

Secretary of State Tre Hargett, a Republican: "Although I appreciate the commission's mission to address election-related issues, like voter fraud, Tennessee state law does not allow my office to release the voter information requested to the federal commission."

VT

Democratic Secretary of State Jim Condos says he is awaiting the outcome of lawsuits filed against the commission. He said there is no evidence of the kind of fraud alleged by Trump.

VA

"At best, this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump's alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression,"

WY

Secretary of State Ed Murray, a Republican, said in a statement that he would "safeguard the privacy of Wyoming's voters because of my strong belief in a citizen's right to privacy." Also, he expressed concern the request could lead to "federal overreach."

So, as you can see there are quite a few republicans in there too, it wasn't "democrats", it was both sides, and the majority concern was safeguarding sensitive personal data, rightly in my opinion.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

(Ignoring the 'registration data' part, because they asked for much more than that)

Yes. A lot of it is publicly available but they wanted stuff which is protected by law. Republicans balked at that in many cases. Figured the Federal Government had no business going there.

But no ballots. Or can you show that ballots were requested?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

(Ignoring the 'registration data' part, because they asked for much more than that)

Yes. A lot of it is publicly available but they wanted stuff which is protected by law. Republicans balked at that in many cases. Figured the Federal Government had no business going there.

But no ballots. Or can you show that ballots were requested?

I can not show that actual 'ballots' were requested.

That is the point I tried to surrender.



I also make no claim that commission was anything other than the clusterfk that it was.

Would never hire anyone involved.

For anything.

I was extremely disappointed.



If your point is that some republicans behaved like democrats on this, then I agree 100%.

But thank you for making the same point.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I was extremely disappointed.

And yet, you touted it.

If your point is that some republicans behaved like democrats on this, then I agree 100%.

Or perhaps some Democrats acted like Republicans and didn't want the Federal Government nosing around where they had no business being.

a reply to: alphabetaone


Wow, thank you for providing all that!


I agree, commission was a miserable failure in targeting the data that they requested.


I also agree that some republicans behaved like democrats on this issue.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Wow, thank you for providing all that!

Perhaps you should read what you link. It was in the link you provided here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

I was extremely disappointed.

And yet, you touted it.

If your point is that some republicans behaved like democrats on this, then I agree 100%.

Or perhaps some Democrats acted like Republicans and didn't want the Federal Government nosing around where they had no business being.

I did not 'tout' the work of commission.

A user inaccurately claimed that Republicans didn't want to investigate after 2016 election.

Existence of commission directly refutes that claim.



You could be correct on who acted like who, and why.

Hopefully causes folks to think about exactly that.

Is why I intentionally say 'democrats' instead of 'democrats and some republicans'.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

Wow, thank you for providing all that!

Perhaps you should read what you link. It was in the link you provided here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thanked a user for putting in the effort to post the info here instead of just linking like I did.

Surely you can see the benefit provided to ATS folks when a user is willing to do this?

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

I also agree that some republicans behaved like democrats on this issue.

Im simply left wondering if, instead of either of them (though likely some) acting in a partisan manner, perhaps they were actually acting in what they thought were the best interests of individuals?

I mean, truthfully if Trump or ANYONE at all said to me "i want your SSN to validate you", they would be lucky to ONLY get off with a F you.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

I also agree that some republicans behaved like democrats on this issue.

Im simply left wondering if, instead of either of them (though likely some) acting in a partisan manner, perhaps they were actually acting in what they thought were the best interests of individuals?

I mean, truthfully if Trump or ANYONE at all said to me "i want your SSN to validate you", they would be lucky to ONLY get off with a F you.

Could be.

But why not try to offer the commission what they thought was more reasonable?


Or translated to today...

Why not make effort to develop better audit method in own state instead of just complaining about ninjas in Arizona?

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

You are assuming the audits which have been conducted are ineffective.

Why?

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

But why not try to offer the commission what they thought was more reasonable?

I dont know about you man, but i feel pretty strongly that safeguarding my personal information by anyone i trusted to do just that, is pretty damned reasonable lol

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

You are assuming the audits which have been conducted are ineffective.

Why?

None have looked at, or even recounted, more than a tiny % of ballots.

a reply to: Nunyabizisit

None have looked at, or even recounted, more than a tiny % of ballots.

They aren't counting all of the ballots in Arizona.

Georgia counted ballots. Three times. Millions of them.

Do you think Texas should have an audit too?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Nunyabizisit

But why not try to offer the commission what they thought was more reasonable?

I dont know about you man, but i feel pretty strongly that safeguarding my personal information by anyone i trusted to do just that, is pretty damned reasonable lol

Agree completely on pii.

Commission was destined to fail due to that alone.

Unless it led to commission and each state working together to find a better way.

Which obviously didn't happen everywhere.




Folks involved with Maricopa audit have also made what I think are over reaches (canvassing), but appear to have found a way to work around that.

So far.

We are watching.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nunyabizisit

They aren't counting all of the ballots in Arizona.

Georgia counted ballots. Three times.

Do you think Texas should have an audit too?

The audit was only approved for Maricopa, but audit folks have indicated that they hope it will eventually be expanded to all counties.

I don't think you are correct on Georgia, will research in a moment.

Yes, I think every state should do some kind of significant audit, that includes looking at every ballot, after every 4yr election.

They should start right now.