The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

originally posted by: Karen657
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm sorry but no he didn't.
He lost.

Hmmmmm... judging by your next statement --

A year later, no fraud proven.

-- I believe you misread... and then misspoke.

To quote myself:

Biden "won" by 10,500 votes

And this is basically true, although I did round up. I believe the exact margin certified in Arizona was 10,460-something votes. However, you seem to have read this as Trump "won," thus adding:

A year later, no fraud proven.

If you would like to expand on your definition of "fraud," particularly in terms of the legal definition for "election fraud," and/or share your criteria for "proven," perhaps a fruitful discussion could be had...

But please know that no one is confined to your definitions and criteria, and anyone and everyone can take exception and objection to whatever they so choose. We do know that laws were broken, safeguards were weakened and ignored, and that hundreds of thousands of questionable illegal and/or invalid ballots have been identified via the official Senate forensic audit and independent canvassing.

As I posted above, and to which you replied but totally and completely ignored, among other findings:

For instance, in the small town of Sells, Arizona, 1,375 residents were determined to be of “voting age.” However, 2,762 people were registered to vote in the town – more than double the voting age population.

The same thing happened in Topawa, another small town in Pima County, where 182 people were considered to be of “voting age” in the town of roughly 400 residents. Somehow, 288 people were reported as registered voters.

Pima County election canvassers also discovered that out of 172 homes in Pima County, 62 early ballots were sent to the elections department from an address where the “voter” did not live, an error rate of 52 percent.

A college fraternity house was also found to have 27 registered voters with an average age of 45 years old.

Remember, this is on top of the findings in Maricopa County:

• Votes counted that were not recorded upon receipt: 255,326
  
• Mail-in votes counted from people who moved: 27,807
  
• Voters who voted more than once: 17,126
  
• More ballots returned by voters than sent to voters: 9,041
  
• Ballots with no signatures or scribble signatures: 4,499
  
• Voters who voted in more than one county: 5,295
  
• Excess ballots that appeared from damaged ballots: 2,592
  
• Other ballot anomalies: 8,570
  
• Total problem ballots: 330,256

These are all problems. Big problems. There could be willful and deliberate fraud, it could be ignorance or arrogance, or it could be incompetence and laziness, that brought us the above results. But it is the result of wrongdoing, whether criminal or not, and needs to be corrected and reformed. Now that the audit has been conducted and the problems identified, it's time to move on with de-certification and necessary and proper election reform legislation.

Noone is recounting the votes, after hundreds of thousands of bad ones found across several states have been identified.

That's perplexing.

Won't make a difference legally, but it will show WHO REALLY WON in PA-GA-AZ-WI-MI-NV-CO..which could verify that Donald Trump was the rightful winner overall.

originally posted by: carewemust
Noone is recounting the votes, after hundreds of thousands of bad ones found across several states have been identified.

That's perplexing.

Won't make a difference legally, but it will show WHO REALLY WON in PA-GA-AZ-WI-MI-NV-CO..which could verify that Donald Trump was the rightful winner overall.

I think that will come in time, but only with thorough and accurate forensic audits and canvassing. That is really the only way to quantify the numbers with any accuracy, and even then it is limited.

But I think it is equally important to let the sun shine brightly on just the fact that because of so many known and identified irregularities and illegalities, that any and all "results" are questionable, and no conclusions can be drawn with any degree of certainty. Especially where the margin is slim, such as Arizona, where the winning margin was less than 11,000 votes.

This is more than enough cause to de-certify results that were not certifiable to begin with. Nothing more needs to be known or proven for de-certification. For criminal charges, or to declare Trump as the true winner, then we do need more proof -- not just evidence.

a reply to: Boadicea
Oops. Sure did.
Got lost.

a reply to: Boadicea

I assume without even looking all this great evidence and info comes from the Gateway Pundit again?

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Boadicea

I assume without even looking all this great evidence and info comes from the Gateway Pundit again?

Arizona Senate President.


But please do keep going with this smearing tactic, it obviously isn't working for you.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The only reference I could find for the Arizona Senate President stating these "facts" (none of which have ever been proven or even shown to be half true) are from extreme right wind sites, most of whom are hell bent on making sure that the "facts" meet the narrative.

How about some REAL facts, and the evidence to back them up, you know something that would hold up in a COURT OF LAW.

Oh that's right, there are none. So yeah, I think that this is now a dead horse that people are just beating for no reason.

originally posted by: vkey08
I think that this is now a dead horse that people are just beating for no reason.

Oh, there's a reason, you can believe that much.

a reply to: vkey08
The Cyber Ninjas delivered exactly what the republican senate of Arizona paid for. They couldn't prove any kind of fraud so they gave the only thing they could. Doubt.
They deliberately misrepresented the data so that people would be confused or at least unsure of the results.
Remember however that at the end of the day they conceded to Biden's win.
Notice how none of the nonsense they claimed has resulted in any criminal charges. Or changed the outcome in the state of Arizona.

Wisconsin 2020 Election Investigation

It's ironic how Democrats are fighting the subpoenas from a Republican investigation into Nov 2020 Wisconsin election integrity.

Article: fox11online.com...

Yet Democrats become angry when Republicans fight subpoenas issued by the committee investigating the January 6th event.

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The only reference I could find for the Arizona Senate President stating these "facts" (none of which have ever been proven or even shown to be half true) are from extreme right wind sites, most of whom are hell bent on making sure that the "facts" meet the narrative.

How about some REAL facts, and the evidence to back them up, you know something that would hold up in a COURT OF LAW.

Oh that's right, there are none. So yeah, I think that this is now a dead horse that people are just beating for no reason.

Those FACTs are now a part of an official CRIMINAL investigation by the Arizona Attorney General.

That continues to this day, without any of the sort of leaks that Democrats are famous for.

The ballots are the ballots. Many of them were not legitimate, and the auditors pointed them out. Are you now claiming that the auditors altered the ballots?

Why lie about something so incredibly absurd?

Desperate much?

originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The only reference I could find for the Arizona Senate President stating these "facts" (none of which have ever been proven or even shown to be half true) are from extreme right wind sites, most of whom are hell bent on making sure that the "facts" meet the narrative.

How about some REAL facts, and the evidence to back them up, you know something that would hold up in a COURT OF LAW.

Oh that's right, there are none. So yeah, I think that this is now a dead horse that people are just beating for no reason.

Are you complaining to me that msm is following democrat party orders to bury this story?

democrats are responsible for that, not me.

I was referring our Senate President's official statements, on the record, on the floor of the Arizona Senate, and the evidence she officially provided to the Senate AND Attorney General.

The same evidence that convinced the Attorney General to open a CRIMINAL investigation of democrat election cheating in Maricopa.

Not any 'extreme right wing site', which to you likely means any site not 100% pushing democrat lies.

originally posted by: Karen657
a reply to: vkey08
The Cyber Ninjas delivered exactly what the republican senate of Arizona paid for. They couldn't prove any kind of fraud so they gave the only thing they could. Doubt.
They deliberately misrepresented the data so that people would be confused or at least unsure of the results.
Remember however that at the end of the day they conceded to Biden's win.
Notice how none of the nonsense they claimed has resulted in any criminal charges. Or changed the outcome in the state of Arizona.

.
Auditors admitted that the count resulted in a biden win BEFORE eliminating any illegitimate ballots.

Why lie about this?

Trying to fool someone?

Or just making yourself feelz better?


BTW: The CRIMINAL investigation began AFTER our Attorney General received and analyzed the audit results, and continues to this day.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
The same evidence that convinced the Attorney General to open a CRIMINAL investigation of democrat election cheating in Maricopa.

I think you're sorely misinformed, if you're talking about Maricopa County.

Here's a list of all the ongoing MC election related criminal prosecutions since 2010, and they total...... 33

33 total election related criminal prosecutions in the last 11 years, almost 12 years.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office - Fraud & Special Prosecutions Section
Prosecutions Related to Voting or Elections Since 2010
1. State v. Peter Canova – Maricopa County (CR 2011-005543-001 DT) – Plea agreement –
Fined $9,200.00 ($5,000.00 + 84% surcharge); ordered to complete 200 hours of community
restitution; placed on unsupervised probation for 2 years.
2. State v. Gina Canova – Maricopa County (CR 2011-005543-002 DT) – Plea agreement –
Fined $13,800.00 ($7,500.00 + 84% surcharge); ordered to complete 300 hours of community
restitution; placed on unsupervised probation for 2 years.
3. State v. John Patrick Marotta – Maricopa County (CR 2011-006088-001 DT) – Plea
agreement – Fined $4,600.00 ($2,500.00 + 84% surcharge) which was paid in full at the time
of sentencing; completed 50 hours of community restitution prior to sentencing.
4. State v. Rodney Paul Jones – Maricopa County (CR 2011-005390-001 DT) – Plea
agreement – Fined $4,600.00 ($2,500.00 + 84% surcharge) which was paid in full at the time
of sentencing; ordered to complete 50 hours of community restitution (which were completed
prior to sentencing); placed on unsupervised probation for 1 month.
5. State v. Shanna Katz-Kattari – Maricopa County (CR 2014-005242-001 DT) – Plea
agreement – Fined $4,575.00 ($2,500.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid in full at the time
of sentencing; completed 67 hours of community restitution prior to sentencing; placed on 2
months unsupervised probation.
6. State v. Milton Fender – Pinal County (CR 2014-01434) – Plea agreement – Fined $2,500.00
which was paid in full at the time of sentencing; completed 100 hours of community restitution
prior to sentencing.
7. State v. Debi Gangaware Fender – Pinal County (CR 2014-01434) – Plea agreement – Fined
$2,500.00 which was paid in full at the time of sentencing; community service waived due to
medical condition.
8. State v. Curtis Vernon Pyeatt – La Paz County (CR 2014-00069) – Plea agreement – Fined
$2,500.00; ordered to complete 100 hours of community restitution; placed on 364 days of
supervised probation.
Updated 11/17/2021
9. State v. Edward Thomas Nichols – Pinal County (CR 2014-01462) – Plea agreement –
Fined $4,575.00 ($2,500.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid at the time of sentencing;
ordered to complete 100 hours of community service while on probation; placed on 18 months
unsupervised probation.
10.State v. Regina Kay Beaupre – Maricopa County (CR 2015-001711-001 DT) – Plea
agreement – Fined $9,150.00 ($5,000.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid at the time of
sentencing; placed on 12 months unsupervised probation; community service waived due to
disability.
11.State v. Steven Jeffrey Streeter – Maricopa County (CR 2015-002203) – Plea agreement –
Fined $5,000.00 which was paid in full at the time of sentencing; completed 100 hours of
community restitution prior to sentencing; placed on two 2 months unsupervised probation.
12.State v. Mary Patricia Gregerson – Pima County (CR 2015-2575) – Plea agreement –Fined
$4,575.00 ($2,500.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid at the time of sentencing; completed
100 hours of community restitution prior to sentencing.
13.State v. Jeffery Worth Hitchcock – Graham County (CR 2015-00229) – Plea agreement –
Fined $2,500.00 which was paid at the time of sentencing; completed 100 hours of community
restitution prior to sentencing; placed on 1 year unsupervised probation.
14.State v. Tom Lee West – Maricopa County (CR 2015-002288) – Plea agreement – Fined
$4,575.00 ($2,500.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid in full at the time of sentencing;
completed 100 hours of community restitution prior to sentencing.
15.State v. Franklin West Turner – Mohave County (CR 2015-00733) – Plea agreement – Fined
$9,150.00 ($5,000.00 + 83% surcharge) which was paid in full at the time of sentencing;
completed 200 hours of community restitution prior to sentencing.
16.State v. Jay Sherill Thompson – Santa Cruz County (CR 2016-0015) – Plea agreement –
Fined $2,500.00 which was paid in full at the time of sentencing; completed 100 hours of
community restitution prior to sentencing.
17.State v. Richard John Greenfield – Pima County (CR 2019-2680) – Plea agreement – Fined
$4,575.00 ($2,500.00 + 83% surcharge); ordered to complete 100 hours of community
restitution; placed on 2 years of supervised probation; offense was left undesignated at the
time of sentencing.
18.State v. Randy Allen Jumper – Pima County (CR 2019-3452) – Plea agreement – $9,150.00
($5,000.00 + 83% surcharge); ordered to complete 300 hours of community restitution; placed
on 3 years of supervised probation; offense was left undesignated at the time of sentencing.
Updated 11/17/2021
19.State v. Brad Luebke – (JC 2018-43520) – Pleaded guilty to violation of “seventy-five foot
limit” statute; fined $400 + mandatory surcharge; placed on 6 months of probation.
20.State v. Victor Varela - Coconino County (CR 2020-00609) – Plea agreement – Fined
$5,000.00, placed on two years’ supervised probation, ordered to write an apology letter and
publish the letter at his own expense in the Arizona Daily Sun newspaper three separate times
for the “harm” he caused to “public confidence in elections.” Legally precluded from seeking or
holding office for five years from date of sentencing.
21.State v. Lorenzo U. Herrera – Maricopa County (CR 2020-001907) – Plea agreement – Fined
$1,000.00, placed on three years’ supervised probation, ordered to complete 300 hours of
community service. Legally precluded from seeking or holding office for five years from date of
sentencing.
22.State v. Nina Mae Becker – Maricopa County (CR 2020-002008) – Case ongoing
23.State v. Alma Yadira Juarez – Yuma County (CR 2020-01214) – Case Ongoing
24.State v. AZ Petition Partners LLC – Maricopa County Superior Court (CR 2020-000467) / AZ
Court of Appeals 1 (CA-SA 21-0170) – Case ongoing
25.State v. Tracey Kay McKee – Maricopa County Superior Court (CR 2021-001430) – Case
ongoing
26.State v. Kyle Anthony Clark – Pima County Superior Court (CR 2021-2919) – Case ongoing
27.State v. Shadae Alexis Smith – Pima County Superior Court (CR 2021-002920) – Case
ongoing
28.State v. Kenneth Russell Nelson – Pima County Superior Court – (CR 2021-3552) – Case
ongoing
29.State v. Guillermina Fuentes – Yuma County Superior Court – (CR 2021-01029) – Case
ongoing
30. State v. Victor Manuel Aguirre – Pima County Superior Court – (CR 2021-2921) – Case
ongoing
31.State v. William Laurance Lenhart & Justin Andrew Chambers – Mohave County Superior
Court – (CR 2021-01112) – Case ongoing
32.State v. Sandra Finch Russell – Cochise County Superior Court – (CR 2021-0084) – Case
ongoing
Updated 11/17/2021
33.State v. Michael Damien Herrera – Pima County Superior Court – (CR 2021-2922) – Case
ongoing

Found here

Lookin for it though....

a reply to: alphabetaone


Nice attempt to continue the lie.

NOBODY said prosecutions have, or even will be, started.

I said the Attorney General opened a CRIMINAL investigation after reviewing the evidence provided to him by the Arizona Senate, and that this 2 month old investigation continues now.

That is a fact.

While what you posted was an obvious attempt at dishonest distraction.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood


NOBODY said prosecutions have, or even will be, started.

Oh ok. I gotcha.

So in other words, nothing.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood


NOBODY said prosecutions have, or even will be, started.

Oh ok. I gotcha.

So in other words, nothing.

It means that the high bar necessary to open a CRIMINAL investigation of state officials in Arizona has already been met.

And that the even higher bar necessary in order to begin prosecuting those cases has not yet been met.


Nothing less, and nothing more.

Facts.

Something democrats appear to be frightened of.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
It means that the high bar necessary to open a CRIMINAL investigation of state officials in Arizona has already been met.

You don't need a high bar in the state of Arizona to open a criminal investigation of state officials, you only need evidence of a crime.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
And that the even higher bar necessary in order to begin prosecuting those cases has not yet been met.

The bars dont keep moving....evidence of a crime is all thats needed.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

Something democrats appear to be frightened about.

Could be. But im gonna go out on a limb and say all politicians (with few rare exceptions) are afraid of the truth and facts. I dont think that fear has a party affiliation.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
It means that the high bar necessary to open a CRIMINAL investigation of state officials in Arizona has already been met.

You don't need a high bar in the state of Arizona to open a criminal investigation of state officials, you only need evidence of a crime.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
And that the even higher bar necessary in order to begin prosecuting those cases has not yet been met.

The bars dont keep moving....evidence of a crime is all thats needed.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

Something democrats appear to be frightened about.

Could be. But im gonna go out on a limb and say all politicians (with few rare exceptions) are afraid of the truth and facts. I dont think that fear has a party affiliation.

EVIDENCE of a CRIME.

Exactly what we were hoping the audit would provide.

And EXACTLY what the Attorney General said he had after studying the audit results for a few weeks.

THAT is a high bar.

The Attorney General cannot open an investigation in order to go searching for evidence of a crime committed by state officials, that evidence must be present before the investigation begins.

Do you understand what this means?

It means that the Arizona Attorney General, and at least one judge, believe that they already have EVIDENCE that democrats committed crimes in their effort to 'win' the Arizona 2020 election.

The next bar is whether they can find enough evidence to prosecute specific individuals for those crimes.

A much higher bar, that has not yet been reached.


Did you think your continued deception would fool anyone here?




Aaand another deceptive deflection at the end of your post.

We are discussing the search for facts regarding the 2020 election.

ONLY democrats have been afraid to look at the facts.

ONLY democrats have gone By Any Means Necessary to hide those facts.

Honestly, why do you continue with the dishonesty?

It clearly isn't effective anymore.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
EVIDENCE of a CRIME.

Exactly what we were hoping the audit would provide.

And EXACTLY what the Attorney General said he had after studying the audit results for a few weeks.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
Do you understand what this means?

Of course i do, it's why I brought it up in the first place.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
ONLY democrats (snipped)

ONLY democrats (snipped)

I know some guys at the VA who could recommend someone for this...