The pushback on Arizona audit is telling

www.npr.org...

One issue is that ballots, voting systems and other election materials are no longer in the custody of election officials — a possible violation of federal law, which requires state and local election workers to store and safeguard federal voting records.

and:

The other issue: Plans for door-to-door canvassing may also violate federal laws aimed at preventing voter intimidation, according to Karlan.

It seems the dems are trying any and everything they can to stop this from coming to light. That in and of itself is curious. There have been several audits since the election, and all of them have verified that the ballots counted match the numbers. Super, that's what is supposed to happen. This one may look a little bit deeper into the validity of the paper ballots, namely the mail in ones, but the only issue might be if some of them were fraudulent. And in a free and fair election, finding fraud like that is mutually important. I remember it happened in NC, a county next to mine not long ago. And it was a Republican. So yes, it happens, and no, it's not right. This in no way should be partisan. Unless the fraud was intentional, and they are worried about it being found out.

The two reasons they give for concern are both garbage. The Ballots aren't being shipped out to some other country to be looked at, they are being examined locally, and the chain of custody is rigid. So reason number one is out the window.

Now, reason number two seems to say that speaking to voters is intimidation. If that's the case, then it would be that way in any circumstance. Like going door to door collecting ballots to turn in. (ballot harvesting) So that would be illegal at the federal level. Or is that different? if so, how?

I have maintained that these audits need to look at two things in particular. One being the signatures on the ballots, and making sure they match. The second, is making sure the ballots were truly official ballots. Both are easy enough to verify, and if you find signatures don't match, then THOSE should be verified by speaking to the voter in person. Address verification is another important aspect of this, that doesn't require intruding on anyone's space.

I'm thinking there is a large amount of fear on the dems side here. After the laughter and smug attitude over anyone questioning the validity of the vote, I can say one thing. Y'all had better be right, if you aren't your past will look rough and will likely bite you in the ass hard.

a reply to: network dude

We all knew from the start that matching the number of votes with the ballots cast were going to be very close. Democrats ran with it and said "SEE! TOLD YA SO!" but in reality, the validity is what people were asking for because we knew that's where it became BS. Democrats are on a bad losing streak. Without cheating, they can't win at state races, they can't win at federal races, hell they can't even "win" a jury trial in their attempt to make a cop look racist without one of their dogs lying to the court about his racism and link to terrorist organizations.

Exactly. Letting a smaller state run a rightful audit would be just ignored for the most part if they were truly expected to find nothing. The fact that everyone is poking their noses in this is very telling. Remember the half-hearted audits done by the states originally? The media all but ignored those. In fact they avoided them, just like they avoided the legislative hearings on election integrity. It is truly telling.

For 4 years they had to investigate Trump just to find out if there was anything there.

But election fraud (or anything else they don't like) investigations are a waste of time and money and shouldn't be done.

a reply to: network dude

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we need to acknowledge that voter intimidation is real... but that means taking the necessary and proper precautions. It does NOT mean accepting any and all ballots from any and all people willynilly.

We've had radio ads running in Maricopa County telling people that we had the bestest and safest elections EVER!!! And then warning folks they their votes are private, and that they don't have to tell anyone who they voted for. That's all well and good.

But those ads could just as easily continue to say that it's okay to talk to canvassers and let them know if they did indeed vote in the last election without saying who they voted for.

It seems to me that folks would also like to know -- and have a right to know -- if someone else voted in their name. Isn't that theft? Someone is stealing another person's vote?

So in Plain sight it is nauseating

FLASHBACK 2017 - much clearer after 4 years of Shenanigans

the BIG LIE

a reply to: network dude
You can add this to the long list of obstacles the Democrats have shoved in the way of the auditors doing their job...
Maricopa County Refuses to Provide Routers to Election Auditors

Arizona’s Maricopa County is refusing to turn over routers or router images to election auditors, defying a judge’s ruling. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office informed former Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett of the decision this week. Bennett is the Arizona Senate’s liaison for the audit.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
For 4 years they had to investigate Trump just to find out if there was anything there.

But election fraud (or anything else they don't like) investigations are a waste of time and money and shouldn't be done.

Exactly. For the entire 4 years of Trump's term, my crazy liberal neighbor moaned about how the election was "stolen".
"Trump cheated, the Russians interferred, the GOP gerrymandered", etc, etc.

Less than a week after Biden was 'elected', I told her that there was evidence of vote manipulation.
She said "Oh no. They've already determined that there was no voter fraud or manipulation."

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: network dude
You can add this to the long list of obstacles the Democrats have shoved in the way of the auditors doing their job...
Maricopa County Refuses to Provide Routers to Election Auditors

Arizona’s Maricopa County is refusing to turn over routers or router images to election auditors, defying a judge’s ruling. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office informed former Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett of the decision this week. Bennett is the Arizona Senate’s liaison for the audit.

I think the paper ballot route will be the ticket here. The Routers, if they held the data that long in the log files would be interesting, but it's unlikely they would still have the files, and see results. And if you see a foreign actor gaining entry, then you have to figure out how or if they were able to infiltrate the machines. But that gets back to paper ballots for every vote. If the machine was skewed the ballots won't match. I think this can all be hashed out without too much effort.

But again, my worry is IF they find fraud on a scale big enough to change things, how does the nation react?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: network dude

But those ads could just as easily continue to say that it's okay to talk to canvassers and let them know if they did indeed vote in the last election without saying who they voted for.

It seems to me that folks would also like to know -- and have a right to know -- if someone else voted in their name. Isn't that theft? Someone is stealing another person's vote?

Knocking on doors asking who you voted for is crossing a line into abuse IMO.

As an AZ resident — who is going to answer the door for strangers?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: network dude
You can add this to the long list of obstacles the Democrats have shoved in the way of the auditors doing their job...
Maricopa County Refuses to Provide Routers to Election Auditors

Arizona’s Maricopa County is refusing to turn over routers or router images to election auditors, defying a judge’s ruling. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office informed former Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett of the decision this week. Bennett is the Arizona Senate’s liaison for the audit.

I think the paper ballot route will be the ticket here. The Routers, if they held the data that long in the log files would be interesting, but it's unlikely they would still have the files, and see results. And if you see a foreign actor gaining entry, then you have to figure out how or if they were able to infiltrate the machines. But that gets back to paper ballots for every vote. If the machine was skewed the ballots won't match. I think this can all be hashed out without too much effort.

But again, my worry is IF they find fraud on a scale big enough to change things, how does the nation react?

We will see republicans act like antifa. And everyone knows it. Hence the resistance to be transparent.

a reply to: Annee

Knocking on doors asking who you voted for is crossing a line into abuse IMO.

I think abuse is too strong of a word. But I see your point. It could definitely be seen as intimidating, whether intended or not.

Maybe a better option would be for the state/county/whatever to suggest people who are registered but did NOT vote to check their voter history, see if someone else voted in their name, and then report to the appropriate authorities. It may or may not be equally effective, but would respect the voters.

ETA: Perhaps it could also be sorted by address, and folks could be requested to check voting history for their address, and people can report any record of any person(s) wrongfully (illegally?) registering and voting from their addresses.

As an AZ resident — who is going to answer the door for strangers?

LOL!!! That's an excellent question!!!

Not me!

originally posted by: network dude
"One issue is that ballots, voting systems and other election materials are no longer in the custody of election officials — a possible violation of federal law, which requires state and local election workers to store and safeguard federal voting records."

And yet, if this is a problem (which it isn't), it is one of their own creation. The Maricopa Board of Elections refused to let them do the audit where it should have been done (in their County facility where everything was stored and in their custody), and the auditors invited them to provide as many of their people as they wanted to participate and make sure everything was secured and maintained properly.

"The other issue: Plans for door-to-door canvassing may also violate federal laws aimed at preventing voter intimidation, according to Karlan."

Rotflmao!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... asking people if they voted, and if so, how (not who, but how - did they vote in person, by mail, or drop box) is 'intimidation'...

originally posted by: Annee
Knocking on doors asking who you voted for is crossing a line into abuse IMO.

It would be... yes - except...

that is not what they are asking.

They are asking IF they voted, and if so, HOW. Not WHO they voted for, but HOW did they vote - In person? By mail? etc

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Knocking on doors asking who you voted for is crossing a line into abuse IMO.

I think abuse is too strong of a word. But I see your point. It could definitely be seen as intimidating, whether intended or not.

Maybe a better option would be for the state/county/whatever to suggest people who are registered but did NOT vote to check their voter history, see if someone else voted in their name, and then report to the appropriate authorities. It may or may not be equally effective, but would respect the voters.

As an AZ resident — who is going to answer the door for strangers?

LOL!!! That's an excellent question!!!

Not me!

I don’t think abuse is too strong a word for this action.

An action that goes beyond reasonable.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Annee
Knocking on doors asking who you voted for is crossing a line into abuse IMO.

It would be... yes - except...

that is not what they are asking.

They are asking IF they voted, and if so, HOW. Not WHO they voted for, but HOW did they vote - In person? By mail? etc

In AZ it’s like the Tax Man knocking on a door in Appalachia.

Majority of voters are Independent/Libertarian.

Then a large population of Native American & Latinos.

And there’s a lot of transplanted snowbirds. They’re probably the only ones who will open the door. If the trailer park gatekeeper lets them in.

a reply to: network dude

But again, my worry is IF they find fraud on a scale big enough to change things, how does the nation react?

That's a big IF. I still have my doubts anything will come out of it, but IF it does...

Obviously, a lot of Trump voters will feel vindicated, and even though one state isn't enough to overturn the national election, it will cast a "yuge" shadow over it. We may even see a few arrests, but i think the biggest thing to come out of it will be a justification and mandate for new and tougher election laws, though we may see some protests and clashes with the Neo-Marxists.

a reply to: network dude

I think it's all theatre.

The evil left finally found a way to engineer election victories. And while they aren't very smart, they're also not stupid enough to leave any evidence of their cheating

Dominion voting machines will be used in 2022. The evil left will keep the House, Senate. Their election "engineering" will see them in power for the foreseeable future.

I look forward to being wrong, but I don't think I will be.

a reply to: network dude

The 3 messages from President Trump over the past 10 days have explained WHY there is such push-back and resistance to the Arizona Forensic Audit by the Democrats and their Main Stream Media co-conspirators. (Which includes Fox News, btw.)

a reply to: Annee

Reasonable... hmmm... I guess that could be subject to interpretation.

I do think it's reasonable to request verification or confirmation, but not to demand or mandate such cooperation after the fact. In other words, it is not only reasonable but justifiable to confirm/verify identity before voting... but not after. In theory and in practice, that should be sufficient.

Going to someone's home could be taken as intimidation, as in "We know where you sleep at night..." type thing. I'm open to alternatives, and I'm open to preventing abuses, but I do think it's reasonable to try. As long as people can still say "F U" (or nothing at all) and go on about their business.