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

a reply to: shooterbrody

Just posted! (Right above this comment and right below yours)

I have a couple more to post in the next few minutes here, but wanted to get the important one up right away...

Just FYI, this is about Doug Logan -- the guy running AZ's audit, and who is currently arguing in court against the Dem's demand for specific descriptions/explanations of his methods and procedures:

‘Cyber Ninjas’ to refute Michigan report on election errors in lingering lawsuit

A Michigan judge on Monday said he’ll allow a dozen tech and election experts, including the Florida firm Cyber Ninjas and others who alleged election fraud following the November presidential election, to refute a secretary of state election report that determined mistakes in Michigan voting results were caused by human error and didn’t signal vulnerability or tampering with election machines.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

No doubt some will disagree on the results. Im still in shock at the wide range of opinions on this Columbus shooting.

a reply to: Boadicea
Thank you!

Why are GEORGIA Election Officials so bent out of shape over the ARIZONA audit?

GA slams AZ: thehill.com...

You think maybe both state's officials are part of the same election cheating scheme?

The "Election Fraud Organization" that candidate Joe Biden arrogantly bragged about?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They did not create the ability to spoil your ballot, only the voter can spoil their ballot in the manner outlined.

Our own human nature creates the potential for human error... that's not what I said and not what I meant.

That ballots will be spoiled is expected, and in that event, the law requires the voter be given a new ballot. They were not given new ballots because the Maricopa County Recorder told them not to give them a new ballot, but to take their spoiled ballot and have it "adjudicated" by others. This was/is a blatant violation of the law. The Recorder refused to change his instructions -- in voilation of the law -- even when told by a Supreme Court.

Additionally, you would then need to show how these spoiled ballots altered the election...

Since it's impossible to know which ballots were "adjudicated" correctly and which incorrectly, this is impossible to do.

...which, as we both know have about a zero point zero chance of doing.

Well, of course! Because it's impossible to do!!! That's NOT virtue...

You think there were tens of thousands of spoiled ballots being counted for Biden over Trump? No? Me neither.

I really don't know. We cannot know.

However, I do know that if someone were intent on cheating to get their guy in office, this is in fact one way votes could be switched and manufactured to ensure more votes for their guy. Especially if certain voters in certain precincts with large percentages of supporters for the other guy were given the wrong pens, absolutely insisted that voters use the wrong pens, and literally created mountains of spoiled ballots for "adjudication"...

A direct result of willful and deliberate illegal instructions in direct violation of the law and the Supreme Court.

a reply to: Byrd

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.

Thank you for explaining. It sounds like the laws in Texas are much like the laws here.

But these lawful and legal procedures were not followed. Voters did not get even one more chance to re-do their ballot. They were denied this chance by the Recorder who instructed poll workers NOT to provide another fresh ballot, but to take their spoiled ballot and send for "adjudication".

The Recorder did so deliberately and willfully, knowing it violated the law, and in defiance of the Supreme Court telling him it was a violation of the law and to cease.

So there will be backups for these and explanations.

There should be... but there is not because the law was violated.

It takes several minutes to spoil a ballot, so it's not possible to mass produce them.

Unless voters are given the wrong pens and those pens spoil the ballots but the voter is refused a new ballot, and their spoiled ballot is sent to "adjudication." Voila! Mass production of spoiled ballots.

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.)

I would very much like to know the exact number/percentage of "adjudicated" ballots. I have read/heard some crazy numbers -- like over 60% of the entire vote! -- but I cannot find any official numbers. I'm hoping/expecting that this will be revealed in the final audit report.

a reply to: carewemust

Thanks for the link!

Gabriel Sterling, a top elections official in Georgia, decried the audit as an attempt to “undermine confidence in elections.”

“This ‘audit’ in Arizona is another step in undermining confidence in elections. This process is neither transparent nor, likely, legal,” Sterling said on Twitter.

Our confidence in the election was undermined even before Election Day, and this audit has nothing to do with it. This audit is the only possible way to restore confidence in our elections.

And this audit has been declared legal by the Arizona Supreme Court, in accordance with both our State and the Federal Constitution, which grants the sole legal authority to the State lawmakers.

Odd that he would get so worked up about another state's audit... unless he knows something we can only suspect without an audit to prove it...

ETA: Wasn't this part shown to be untrue?

Following the election, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and asked him to "find" more than 11,000 votes, according to recordings of the exchange.

Or am I misremembering?

originally posted by: Boadicea
That ballots will be spoiled is expected, and in that event, the law requires the voter be given a new ballot. They were not given new ballots because the Maricopa County Recorder told them not to give them a new ballot...

Neither of your links report that, they both say he 'advised' voters to cross out their incorrect votes.

ince it's impossible to know which ballots were "adjudicated" correctly and which incorrectly, this is impossible to do.

Then what is this audit hoping to prove in that regard?

However, I do know that if someone were intent on cheating to get their guy in office, this is in fact one way votes could be switched and manufactured to ensure more votes for their guy. Especially if certain voters in certain precincts with large percentages of supporters for the other guy were given the wrong pens, absolutely insisted that voters use the wrong pens, and literally created mountains of spoiled ballots for "adjudication"...

A direct result of willful and deliberate illegal instructions in direct violation of the law and the Supreme Court.

See above, you don't even know how to isolate these alleged ballots to substantiate your sour grapes cheating claim.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

"Advised," huh? As if Fontes were personally at each and every precinct and directly addressing each voter with a spoiled ballot???

Please.

But thanks for pointing out what I've been saying all along: We have absolutely no means or methods to verify the integrity of our elections. The fact that we cannot know how many ballots were "adjudicated" incorrectly is not a virtue!!!

I have no hope for Biden being removed because of this audit... I have no desire for Trump to replace Biden... but I sure as hell want to KNOW our elections are as fair and honest as absolutely possible. And that means identifying the problems and fixing them.

We aim to do exactly that. This audit is just the beginning.

originally posted by: Boadicea
"Advised," huh? As if Fontes were personally at each and every precinct and directly addressing each voter with a spoiled ballot???

No, he wasn't and that's the point. Proper instructions on how to obtain a new ballot were sent out by him with the early voting ballots and people still could request a new ballot in person since, as you just pointed out, he wasn't at every location to prevent this.

But thanks for pointing out what I've been saying all along: We have absolutely no means or methods to verify the integrity of our elections. The fact that we cannot know how many ballots were "adjudicated" incorrectly is not a virtue!!!

I have no hope for Biden being removed because of this audit... I have no desire for Trump to replace Biden... but I sure as hell want to KNOW our elections are as fair and honest as absolutely possible. And that means identifying the problems and fixing them.

We aim to do exactly that. This audit is just the beginning.

This audit is as pointless as it is stupid. The possible number of adjudicated ballots required to alter the outcome would have had to have raised red flags with poll watchers who were Republicans. But it hasn't in the number required to change anything.

Deal with reality, your boy lost because he was an obnoxious asshole and people got tired of that clown show.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, he wasn't and that's the point. Proper instructions on how to obtain a new ballot were sent out by him with the early voting ballots and people still could request a new ballot in person since, as you just pointed out, he wasn't at every location to prevent this.

People did ask for a new ballot, and were refused by election workers in accordance with the illegal and unlawful instructions of the Recorder. There is no whitewashing this. It is what it is.

Minimize it all you want. It doesn't matter. This is a very clear and documented case of election laws willfully and deliberately violated.

This audit is as pointless as it is stupid.

Um hmm... So we've been told. And much worse. Countless times.

The possible number of adjudicated ballots required to alter the outcome would have had to have raised red flags with poll watchers who were Republicans. But it hasn't in the number required to change anything.

But it did happen. And yes, it did raise "red flags," especially when the laws regarding observers was likewise violated, not allowing for the legally and lawfully mandated observers in the adjudication process. I don't know what "numbers" of red flags you want, but there was plenty of red flags raised, and even one is too much.

Deal with reality, your boy lost because he was an obnoxious asshole and people got tired of that clown show.

LOL!!! "Trump! Trump! Trump!!!"

Okay... The reality is that laws were broken and we are conducting an audit to find what we can find. The chips will fall where they may.

originally posted by: Boadicea
People did ask for a new ballot, and were refused by election workers in accordance with the illegal and unlawful instructions of the Recorder. There is no whitewashing this. It is what it is.

All of them? Some of them? How about some details?

But it did happen. And yes, it did raise "red flags," especially when the laws regarding observers was likewise violated, not allowing for the legally and lawfully mandated observers in the adjudication process. I don't know what "numbers" of red flags you want, but there was plenty of red flags raised, and even one is too much.

I'm not arguing that one is not too much, I'm saying there isn't even remotely enough to lend credence to the stupidity that Trump put out there and his deluded followers ate up like it was one of his well done steaks smothered in ketchup.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All of them? Some of them? How about some details?

Excellent questions deserving of answers that we do not have. Hence, the audit.

I'm not arguing that one is not too much, I'm saying there isn't even remotely enough to lend credence to the stupidity that Trump put out there and his deluded followers ate up like it was one of his well done steaks smothered in ketchup.

Trump's stupidity has no place here. It is neither needed nor wanted.

This is about Arizona's laws, Arizona's elections, and the will of the people of Arizona. We know there were problems. We want to know more. We want effective and efficient election reform.

At this point, this audit is the best we've got to make that happen. It ain't perfect. But it's what we've got, and we damn well better make the most and the best of it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Trump's stupidity has no place here. It is neither needed nor wanted.

Except all of these audit's are based on that nitwit's gullible followers thinking he got cheated.

AZ GOP Chair Dr. Kelli Ward: Democrats Want to Stall Process to May 14th — Here’s Why…
(Spoiler: Because the Senate only has the Coliseum reserved until the 14th)

Judge Martin Allows AZ Audit To Continue Until Ruling On Wednesday

Judge Martin decided to allow the audit to continue pending further arguments tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., MST.

Tomorrow the judge may decide whether to hear ex parte testimony that proves the firms hired to perform the audit have the physical, cyber, and personnel procedures in place to protect the rights of the voters of Maricopa County. Judge Martin gave no indication as to whether he thinks further delays are necessary to hear the case. Neither party wants the case delayed inordinately. However, Judge Martin mentioned that it may be necessary to send the case to the Court of Appeals, depending on his ruling tomorrow. The judge said there could be a “special action and temporary restraining order (TRO) at the same time.”

In today’s hearing, neither side changed its stance. The plaintiffs in the case argued that Cyber Ninjas, the lead party in the audit, has not provided adequate proof of its ability to conduct a secure and confidential audit of the ballots. The Defendants argued that they have a right to protect their procedures and policies from review by the plaintiffs because, their client, the state legislature, has not been waived from privilege in the case. Importantly, Attorney Alexander Kolodin, who spoke on behalf of the legislature told the judge that “this is the audit of the legislature,” not an audit to litigate the results of the 2020 election. “Nothing went wrong is an acceptable response” as a result of our audit, he continued.

The following is a document (pdf) I found written by Doug Logan, of Cyber Ninjas, detailing known election security weaknesses and vulnerabilities, particularly in regard to the software/hardware and the companies involved:

Election Fraud Facts & Details

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except all of these audit's are based on that nitwit's gullible followers thinking he got cheated.

No, they are not. Not this one anyway.

We can't stop Trump -- or anyone -- from saying stupid things. But neither should Trump saying stupid things stop us from doing the right thing for the right reason.

If we had better options, we would take them. But we don't. And no one is offering anything better. Which is the real problem. And the real foundation for this audit. Which will inform and inspire the coming election law reform.

originally posted by: Boadicea
No, they are not. Not this one anyway.

No? Tell me about the 'Thief-and-Chief' again. You think he won fairly or did he rob your boy of his yard sign/boat parade-guaranteed victory?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No? Tell me about the 'Thief-and-Chief' again.

Okay -- it's Thief-in-Chief. He not only refused to allow his "win" to be verified, he prepared in advance to fight any effort by anyone else to do so. If I walk out of a store with merchandise and refuse to produce a receipt, I can and will be arrested for stealing. Same principle.

Ipso facto: Thief-in-Chief.

You think he won fairly...

I doubt it, but I don't know. I would like to know, but I cannot know.

...or did he rob your boy of his yard sign/boat parade-guaranteed victory?

Whose "boy"??? You are the only one in this conversation who can't get past Trump.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I doubt it, but I don't know. I would like to know, but I cannot know.

You either think he won because he got more votes or there was massive fraud, this isn't some sort of on the fence type scenario.

Whose "boy"??? You are the only one in this conversation who can't get past Trump.

Trump is the conversation because he duped all of you into thinking he got cheated when in reality he turned himself into as much of an unlikable person as Hillary in 2016.