Cyber Ninjas Official Arizona Audit Report

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: interupt42
All election records for 22 months after.


Not a hard concept.


No malice or intent needed.
All election records.
Period.

Simple law.

sure , go with your wants. if you want it enough it will become real is a great legal strategy. get kracken.

if you think law doesn't work on specifics youi might as well believe in fairytales. don't google santa or you might get shocked on what you find out.

originally posted by: interupt42
nor is logs getting overwritten unusual.

Actually, allowing logs to be overwritten is a blatant violation of Federal Law requiring maintaining any and all Election records for a specified period of time.

It is pathetically easy simply have logs go to a dedicated permanent logging server with no storage limit.

In fact, that is why Ninjas want/need the Splunk logs.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: interupt42
nor is logs getting overwritten unusual.

Actually, allowing logs to be overwritten is a blatant violation of Federal Law requiring maintaining any and all Election records for a specified period of time.

It is pathetically easy simply have logs go to a dedicated permanent logging server with no storage limit.

In fact, that is why Ninjas want/need the Splunk logs.

I posted the law.
Dude just doesn't get it.
All is a hard concept for some.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, allowing logs to be overwritten is a blatant violation of Federal Law requiring maintaining any and all Election records for a specified period of time.

Well maybe you can provide that specific law stating revolving logs are a violation of Federal Law as nobody else has been able to .

revolving logs is a very common practice .

a reply to: interupt42
Lol
"All Records and papers"

All

NO ALL

a reply to: shooterbrody

I posted the law.

No what you posted was a blanket statement with no specifics where it says revolving logs is against the law.
Whether you like it or not the law doesn't work on broad terms and deals in specifics.

I have asked you numerous times but you keep replying with irrelevant comments and aren't able to show where it specifically talks about programs using revolving logs which is very common.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: interupt42
Lol
"All Records and papers"

All

NO ALL

Believe what you want, but you are going to be disappointed when it doesn't hold in a court of law.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: shooterbrody

I posted the law.

No what you posted was a blanket statement with no specifics where it says revolving logs is against the law.
Whether you like it or not the law doesn't work on broad terms and deals in specifics.

I have asked you numerous times but you keep replying with irrelevant comments and aren't able to show where it specifically talks about programs using revolving logs which is very common.

I quoted the actual law, 52 USC 20701, formerly 42 USC 1974.
Lol
You saying no it isn't doesn't make it so.

ALL

a reply to: Skyman65

And you really thought it was expected to see proof of ballots being scanned four-five times?

Yes, I thought they had "real" evidence, like they have claimed.

What this shows is that anyone who had physical access had every opportunity to change the outcome of the election. No I dollar Russian cyber spy required. Just the computer applications course flunky from high school, and Joe's your Uncle.

lol, it does not. This "evidence" does not demonstrate in any way that the election would have resulted any differently.

As for the trolling - so obvious, sure you may get a few reactions here and there but nobody takes it serious.

You are too smart for me I guess. I still got about four sentences out of you on it.

a reply to: interupt42

Whether you like it or not the law doesn't work on broad terms and deals in specifics.

I would say that quite often it does...

But I'm trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that because such programs are not specifically illegal, and are commonly used (including in election matters), that those records are not subject to the record retention law?

Or are you saying that such records would have been stored elsewhere -- therefore technically "retained" under the law -- and therefore it is not a violation to overwrite those records?

And would that "elsewhere" be the routers and splunk logs that the County refused to turn over? (Although, to be clear, they have now been provided for examination and analysis).

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: tanstaafl
Well maybe you can provide that specific law stating revolving logs are a violation of Federal Law as nobody else has been able to .

There is no such law.

There is, however, a federal law that require all Elections officials to retain all data related/relevenat to the Election.

Are you suggesting that logs do not fall under this purview?

revolving logs is a very common practice .

Irrelevant.

a reply to: CharlesT

Those of us that are still capable of critical thought have known from the outset Joe Biden didn't get more votes than any other president in U.S history. We knew, he couldn't fill a high school auditorium with actual supporters.

Trump had to be sabotaged and replaced because he was on our side and when it comes to corrupt governance in America, that can't be tolerated.

Anyone that actually thinks Joe Biden won the 2020 election by real votes is the dumbest person on this planet. Period.

a reply to: Helious

Anyone that actually thinks Joe Biden won the 2020 election by real votes is the dumbest person on this planet. Period.

Would I still be the dumbest person on the planet if I believe that Joe Biden did not receive the most votes in history, but Trump was voted against the most of all time?

a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: Boadicea

Are you suggesting that logs do not fall under this purview?

I'm saying with lack of specifics on the law the defense will have a field day dismissing a script running that utilizes revolving logs. Especially as its a common practice.

The other example a poster posted where they are showing someone actually deleting data that is promising.

For the record as I have stated many times I have 0 confidence on the elections and highly doubt it wasn't highly tampered with. However, if the best they got is a program running using revolving logs then Its going to be a dud of a case. Luckily it appears they have more than just that from what others posted.

However I haven't looked into the report yet ,because frankly the end result is always the same with no accountability and haven't been in the mood to prioritize time to read it yet.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: Boadicea

Are you suggesting that logs do not fall under this purview?

I'm saying with lack of specifics on the law the defense will have a field day dismissing a script running that utilizes revolving logs. Especially as its a common practice.

The other example a poster posted where they are showing someone actually deleting data that is promising.

For the record as I have stated many times I have 0 confidence on the elections and highly doubt it wasn't highly tampered with. However, if the best they got is a program running using revolving logs then Its going to be a dud of a case. Luckily it appears they have more than just that from what others posted.

However I haven't looked into the report yet ,because frankly the end result is always the same with no accountability and haven't been in the mood to prioritize time to read it yet.

The word all was used to describe anything that was a record. Specifics were not used because if it was then anything not specified would be legal. If all automobiles are required to have headlights at night would your Prius be exempt because it said all and not your 2004 Prius. It is a catch all word so they don’t have to re write the law. You would gain more credibility if you don’t split words. You didn’t think there was a law or if there was it wouldn’t be produced. When it was you lowered yourself to defining all. Like Clinton when he said it depends on what it means. It’s a low class move used by scum.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

You would gain more credibility if you don’t split words.

That is exactly what law is about and what attorneys go after. What is the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

It’s a low class move used by scum.

Sure it is . Were you expecting anything different when dealing with politicians,lawyers, and extremely powerful people? Only an incompetent defense attorney wouldn't utilize such tools in his tool kit to dismiss evidence or skirt around a law.

Lets check back after this goes to court and see if they included those revolving logs as a crime and how the defense reacts to it and the outcome of it.

All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
"all the people I met"

Give mea different definition that means less than the whole.

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: CharlesT

Those of us that are still capable of critical thought have known from the outset Joe Biden didn't get more votes than any other president in U.S history. We knew, he couldn't fill a high school auditorium with actual supporters.

Trump had to be sabotaged and replaced because he was on our side and when it comes to corrupt governance in America, that can't be tolerated.

Anyone that actually thinks Joe Biden won the 2020 election by real votes is the dumbest person on this planet. Period.

😂

Anyone with critical thinking wouldn’t vote for a guy who got busted for running a sham university. Who got busted using his charity to self deal. (He bought a huge painting of HIMSELF, ffs.) Anyone with critical thinking would know he’s a master grifter by those two FACTS alone. Anyone with critical thinking wouldn’t vote for a guy who inherited 200 million dollars at the age 21 and thinks he know or cares about the working class. Anyone with critical thinking would see clearly he’s using you.

But, god damn, I hope he runs again. He was the reason critical thinking folk came out to vote in droves.😂. Please, please, put him on the ballot again!

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: Helious

Anyone that actually thinks Joe Biden won the 2020 election by real votes is the dumbest person on this planet. Period.

Would I still be the dumbest person on the planet if I believe that Joe Biden did not receive the most votes in history, but Trump was voted against the most of all time?

You most certainly are wrong. That you reword it to fit your reality doesn't matter. Biden couldn't get people to come see him and literally every city the Donald landed the lines were for miles to get in after the doors were closed and the seats were full of MAGA loving patriots.

Trump got the most votes of any POTUS in history not Obama or Obiden.