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

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well then that would seemingly indicate that OANN made up the claim that officials have found signs of fraud and got called out on it. Unfortunately, unlike many media outlets, OANN has not printed the reason for why an article was changed.

Nor did they print why they thought so to begin with. They didn't even attribute it to anonymous sources. There was no sourcing for the claim at all.

I did hear an interview with Ken Bennett stating that the audit was already providing results, but he did not qualify those results in any way. Simply "results" can be good or bad.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The reason you're having a never ending series of audits is that people still cannot accept the fact that Trump lost. If they weren't so politically deluded they would have seen the handwriting on the wall awhile ago. I get Biden is a clown but Trump elevated clown-like behavior to a new level worthy of restarting the Ringling Brothers Circus, that's why he lost, enough people got tired of his antics.

I don't believe that... those folks are the ones crying in their cups and saying the audit won't prove nuttin' and that the evidence has already been destroyed or corrupted or whatever. They gave up when Trump left the White House and the Thief-in-Chief moved in. They've all returned to their usual nonsense.

And that's fine with me. I'm happy to have Trump out of the equation. Now we can focus on election integrity itself.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I don't believe that...

Uh, sure:

...the Thief-in-Chief moved in.

Either he won because Trump out turded him or he cheated.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Boadicea

That's the issue though, any results they produce are worthless since they're not revealing how they came to those results. This is all a dog & pony show that will net Cyber Ninjas a lot of publicity and money but nothing else.

Maybe you're right. I'm certainly not ruling that out. But we don't know that yet. And we certainly don't know that yet about the other work being performed.

Some things should absolutely be knowable. For example, there is definitely scientifically proven technology that can compare paper stock, ink, fonts, etc. If ballots are found with different paper stock, different ink, different fonts, etc., then you and I can know that those are not official ballots but fraudulent ballots. (I don't know they are testing for these things, I don't know they aren't. I'm just using it as an example of things that can be proven one way or another).

I'm not happy about the lack of transparency in any of this -- not the audit, not the election itself. But when push comes to shove -- and it has -- then we do what we can with what we have. This audit is what we have. If nothing else, this is a learning experience by fire. This should be the impetus for major election reform that allows us to know what we currently cannot know.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Boadicea
I don't believe that...

Uh, sure:

...the Thief-in-Chief moved in.

Either he won because Trump out turded him or he cheated.

Well, technically, I don't think either Trump or Biden have the brains to figure all this out, much less make it happen, so I may be giving Biden too much credit here.

Second, you aren't the only equal opportunity critter hater here. It is possible to hold both in contempt and disdain.

However, I already know that election laws were violated and trampled and there is too much room for too much abuse. Team Biden fought every effort to validate the election results. Congress failed to consider and examine the objections made prior to confirmation. (Yeah, yeah, I know... insurrection and sedition ohmygod!!!)

As far as I'm concerned, that was a big fat F U to me personally. Unless and until I see confirmation and verification of a fair and honest election, he's the Thief-in-Chief.

originally posted by: Boadicea
However, I already know that election laws were violated...

They were? Which ones?

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire:

SB 43, The Windham Voting Machine Audit Bill, Is Now NH Law

UPDATE: Windham, New Hampshire Officials Meet to Select Analysts for Forensic Audit – Choose Verified Voting as First of Three Companies for Review

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here's one that happened even before Election Day:

Fontes Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Advises Voters To Cross Out Errors

Arizona Supreme Court Issues Rebuke Against Maricopa County Recorder Fontes

Either those ballots were thrown out entirely, in which case the voter's vote was denied, or the ballot was "adjudicated," meaning someone else decided what the voter "intended".

Much like the ballots of the Sharpiegate voters were either thrown out or "adjudicated."

Then add in that contrary to law requiring a party member to be present for all "adjudications," that did not happen.

Laws broken. Not acceptable.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Either those ballots were thrown out entirely, in which case the voter's vote was denied, or the ballot was "adjudicated," meaning someone else decided what the voter "intended".

So they followed the law on these ballots then.

Please let me know when you find someone breaking the law in regards counting the ballots and giving the win to Biden.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So they followed the law on these ballots then.

Please let me know when you find someone breaking the law in regards counting the ballots and giving the win to Biden.

No, they did not follow the law. They illegally created an opportunity for denying and changing legitimate votes by legitimate voters under color of law. The initial law-breaking was merely perpetuated.

If I steal someone's property, then give it to you or even sell it to you, it's still stolen property, and you are still guilty of possession of stolen property, whether you actually performed the act of stealing or not. The criminal liability does not stop after the initial act. Hence such laws as "accessory after the fact."

Please let me know when you find someone breaking the law in regards counting the ballots and giving the win to Biden.

If I find such, I shall do so.

But I'm not for a minute confining myself to this one specific act. There are plenty of laws to break and plenty of ways to break them. None are acceptable.

originally posted by: Boadicea
They illegally created an opportunity for denying and changing legitimate votes by legitimate voters under color of law.

They did not create the ability to spoil your ballot, only the voter can spoil their ballot in the manner outlined. This is like blaming someone who told you to jump off a bridge.

Additionally, you would then need to show how these spoiled ballots altered the election, which, as we both know have about a zero point zero chance of doing. You think there were tens of thousands of spoiled ballots being counted for Biden over Trump? No? Me neither.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Well then that would seemingly indicate that OANN made up the claim that officials have found signs of fraud and got called out on it. Unfortunately, unlike many media outlets, OANN has not printed the reason for why an article was changed.

Possibly an off the record comment, but maybe made up as well. I do notice its harder and harder to get retractions from news sites, they do need to own it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Boadicea

Here's my issue with this, has this method undergone any kind of peer review? It seems to me like it's based on a bunch of presumptions. The only way to prove it actually works is to test it on ballots that are known to be fraudulent. But to know which ballots are fraudulent you would need to have a proven technique that detects them.

Sure, take 100 ballots with 50 done by automation and 50 done by hand. See how accurately your techniques work. If their contraption cant reliably show which are which, the auditors have a problem. They are going to have prove it of course.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Even if they can show their method works in that instance all they've proven is that their method detects that form of automation. How do they know that actual fraudulent ballots used that same form? How do they know there aren't legitimate ballots that can also trip their equipment?

Like I said before, it impossible for them to actually prove their method works unless they use actual ballots they know are fraudulent. But if they can already prove which ballots are fraudulent then why do they need to use this new proprietary method?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Certainly it is possible some fraudulent ballots will get by them. Not all criminals are proven guilty.

Forensics is coming up with new methods all the time, we will have to see if they can prove it.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Boadicea
I don't believe that...

Uh, sure:

...the Thief-in-Chief moved in.

Either he won because Trump out turded him or he cheated.

However, I already know that election laws were violated and trampled and there is too much room for too much abuse. Team Biden fought every effort to validate the election results.

If you rob a store with police and cameras all around, yet nobody arrests you, what does that say? Same thing happened with election laws being broken. Everyone (who cared) saw it happening, both before and on election day. Yet.....

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I'm not worried about fraudulent ballots getting by them. I'm worried about legitimate ballots getting tossed out because they were flagged as fraudulent.

Once again, this is an unproven methodology that is impossible to test against a control. Not only that but they're not even revealing what their methodology is. How can any results produced by such an untested, secretive, process be taken as legitimate? Especially when the creator of this process and the owner of the company performing the audit were pushing an agenda?

As it stands right now Pulitzer and Cyber Ninjas could pretty much say whatever they wanted and there would be no way to refute them because no one would know how they came to that conclusion. These guys aren't great patriots. They're con men that are going to become rich by exploiting, and in the process expanding, the divide that exists between Left & Right.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here's one that happened even before Election Day:

Fontes Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Advises Voters To Cross Out Errors

Arizona Supreme Court Issues Rebuke Against Maricopa County Recorder Fontes

Either those ballots were thrown out entirely, in which case the voter's vote was denied, or the ballot was "adjudicated," meaning someone else decided what the voter "intended".

Much like the ballots of the Sharpiegate voters were either thrown out or "adjudicated."

Then add in that contrary to law requiring a party member to be present for all "adjudications," that did not happen.

Laws broken. Not acceptable.

The procedure for "spoiling" a ballot (I'm an election judge and trained in this) is that you collect the old ballot, write "spoiled" on it, LOG the incident, and explain why it was spoiled. The log is a triplicate document, saved in three different places. The spoiled ballot is put in the Spoiled Document Envelope and sealed.

The regular ballot is then cast.

You get only three chances to redo your ballot. The ID of the person casting the ballot is confirmed (here in Texas) and it's confirmed that they haven't voted before.

So there will be backups for these and explanations. It takes several minutes to spoil a ballot, so it's not possible to mass produce them. We generally get about one spoiled ballot per 400/500 voters. I've had to spoil some ballots when they got stuck in the voting machine (not the counter, but the one that marks up your votes.)

a reply to: Boadicea
Any updates for today?
TIA!

Update re court case and today's hearing by new judge:

Judge Martin: "Senate has authority to audit but must balance w constitutional rights of voters."
He added later: "I'm not persuaded that rights of voters in Maricopa County are being protected." Judge said that issue is central to case.

Cyber Ninjas' lawyer said audit workers in 'monumental race against clock' before have to leave coliseum by 5/14. Said top guy at one of the audit firms collapsed from exhaustion.

Next hearing 10:30 am Wednesday on whether Cyber Ninjas can bar public & media from seeing docs on procedures and from hearings on subject.

Brahm Resnik (NBC reporter) Twitter