Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

[Seattle Husker]

A FOIA request for Karen Fann's (AZ Senate leader) email has a few interesting nuggets.

1. She was in direct contact with Guiliani and got a "thank you" call from Trump for her attempt to find the fraud.
2. Lot's of threats from her constituents.
3. In at least one email she admits Biden won.

She's a politician through and through. For Trump supporters she' finding the fraud but in responses to democrats she's simply trying to educate themselves on potential election law changes.

 

[mb227]

The Right's worst nightmare based on current conservative priorities.

Nevada governor adds his state to the list of mail-in-ballot states.

Spicy is trying to torch the State because he knows he will never see another term in office. He is deflecting from his miserable failures related to masks...

 

[OUBubba]

GOP Arizona Senate president admitted in email that she didn't believe audit would uncover widespread fraud
it’s just a con job.

 

[AC]

 

[iatrogenic]

GOP Arizona Senate president admitted in email that she didn't believe audit would uncover widespread fraud
it’s just a con job.

Just think how good the Dems will look if that is the ultimate finding. I would want that situation if I were a socialist bent on voter fraud. It opens up many possibilities.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If my grandmother had balls . .

 

[Mr. Deez]

GOP Arizona Senate president admitted in email that she didn't believe audit would uncover widespread fraud
it’s just a con job.

If they actually believed it would, they would have hired a reputable auditor. Instead they went with a company that already believed the desired outcome. Frankly, it wasn't a smart move if they actually believed in or even truly suspected significant fraud, because of the bias and lack of expertise of the auditors. They don't have the credibility to be taken at their word.

It's like this. Suppose you're in line at a gas station after fueling up your hoopty and another redneck spits into his cup, points at a mole on your neck and says, "**** man, you got the cancer. Better go find yourself some chemo." Of course, Cletus and his mullet could be right, but are you going to accept his "diagnosis" and treatment plan? Probably not. You'll probably blow him off. If you look at it and it looks weird, you might drive to Texas where you can find doctors who know how to read and believe in things like washing their hands and taking a shower from time to time and have it looked at.

Ditto for Cyber Ninjas. Suppose they actually find the bamboo and claim significant voter fraud. Will people believe it? Perhaps, but it will have to supported and corroborated by a more reputable auditor. Basically, there will have to be an audit of the audit.

 

[iatrogenic]

If they actually believed it would, they would have hired a reputable auditor. Instead they went with a company that already believed the desired outcome. Frankly, it wasn't a smart move if they actually believed in or even truly suspected significant fraud, because of the bias and lack of expertise of the auditors. They don't have the credibility to be taken at their word.

It's like this. Suppose you're in line at a gas station after fueling up your hoopty and another redneck spits into his cup, points at a mole on your neck and says, "**** man, you got the cancer. Better go find yourself some chemo." Of course, Cletus and his mullet could be right, but are you going to accept his "diagnosis" and treatment plan? Probably not. You'll probably blow him off. If you look at it and it looks weird, you might drive to Texas where you can find doctors who know how to read and believe in things like washing their hands and taking a shower from time to time and have it looked at.

Ditto for Cyber Ninjas. Suppose they actually find the bamboo and claim significant voter fraud. Will people believe it? Perhaps, but it will have to supported and corroborated by a more reputable auditor. Basically, there will have to be an audit of the audit.

Let's put it in terms Democrats understand, by using the reasoning they use; Say you're a Democrat and you are going to hire a Special Counsel to investigate the Trump campaign for a hoax that the Democrats manufactured. Of the 17 people your hire to investigate the hoax, 13 need to be raging libs. The reason, per Dems, that you hire raging libs is because you want an adversarial investigator, not an impartial one, because who better to find wrongdoing than people that really care about the issue. That way, if you're exonerated, you can claim that even a biased investigation couldn't find wrong doing. Maybe the Maricopa audit team can indict a few Russians and find some tax fraud unrelated to the investigation, and the Republicans can pretend like those indictments had something to do with voter fraud, but that is as far as it will go.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If they actually believed it would, they would have hired a reputable auditor. Instead they went with a company that already believed the desired outcome. Frankly, it wasn't a smart move if they actually believed in or even truly suspected significant fraud, because of the bias and lack of expertise of the auditors. They don't have the credibility to be taken at their word.

It's like this. Suppose you're in line at a gas station after fueling up your hoopty and another redneck spits into his cup, points at a mole on your neck and says, "**** man, you got the cancer. Better go find yourself some chemo." Of course, Cletus and his mullet could be right, but are you going to accept his "diagnosis" and treatment plan? Probably not. You'll probably blow him off. If you look at it and it looks weird, you might drive to Texas where you can find doctors who know how to read and believe in things like washing their hands and taking a shower from time to time and have it looked at.

Ditto for Cyber Ninjas. Suppose they actually find the bamboo and claim significant voter fraud. Will people believe it? Perhaps, but it will have to supported and corroborated by a more reputable auditor. Basically, there will have to be an audit of the audit.

The goal isn't to find fraud but find partisan evidence to introduce more doubt to increase the 65% of R voters who believe the election was stolen. Consider itva springboard to Trump's 2024 run. It allows Trump's base to again believe that Trump has never been defeated (ignoring 2000 on the Reform ticket). Not sure how this convinces anyone to cross over and vote for Trump but he's always been about playing only to the base.

 

[AC]

Ballot Duplication System And Methods Thereof Patent Application
Runbeck ran the voting machines. Here is their patent on ballot duplication systems. Cyber ninja’s is a cyber crime forensics company. Everyone saying they’re not qualified probably doesn’t understand cyber crimes. Neither do I. Not on my resume.

 

[Garmel]

Ballot Duplication System And Methods Thereof Patent Application
Runbeck ran the voting machines. Here is their patent on ballot duplication systems. Cyber ninja’s is a cyber crime forensics company. Everyone saying they’re not qualified probably doesn’t understand cyber crimes. Neither do I. Not on my resume.

People also keep saying they don't have auditing experience. 1) Auditing isn't hard and it's not rocket science. 2) CyFIR, one of the teams involved, does have auditing experience. I don't know how people keep buying into these left wing talking points.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Ballot Duplication System And Methods Thereof Patent Application
Runbeck ran the voting machines. Here is their patent on ballot duplication systems. Cyber ninja’s is a cyber crime forensics company. Everyone saying they’re not qualified probably doesn’t understand cyber crimes. Neither do I. Not on my resume.

I haven't seen any reference to Kevin Runbeck being involved, have a link? Neither he nor his company have been mentioned in various AZ Senate statements.

Incidentally, here were Runbeck's views leading in to the 2020 election. He didn't believe mail-in voting favored any party nor that illegal immigrants were a risk to vote.

 

[Seattle Husker]

People also keep saying they don't have auditing experience. 1) Auditing isn't hard and it's not rocket science. 2) CyFIR, one of the teams involved, does have auditing experience. I don't know how people keep buying into these left wing talking points.

What election audit experience does CyFir have? Intersec, who bid the audit had audit experience and included CyFir on their bid but I haven't found any documentation that the latter, a separate company has experience.

Wake TSI is the only company who had experience and now we know their Fulton County experience was a secret audit in Jan 2021.

Wake TSI is no longer participating in the AZ investigation.

None of the companies publicly disclosed to be working on the investigation are certified by the US Elections Assistance Commission.

Maricopa county did have 2 certified companies come in to audit before this investigation spun up. References to what they tested and their findings are at the bottom of the local story linked above.

 

[OUBubba]

If you want to find recruiting violations with Aggy send a Longhorn crew to look into it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you want to find recruiting violations with Aggy send a Longhorn crew to look into it.

Good analogy.

 

[Garmel]

If you want to find recruiting violations with Aggy send a Longhorn crew to look into it.

Which doesn't matter when the aggies are caught with stolen sheep to bribe the players with.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Which doesn't matter when the aggies are caught with stolen sheep to bribe the players with.

The problem is that nobody will believe that UT investigators found "stolen sheep to bribe players with" because UT investigators would have a bias. Were the sheep actually stolen or simply owned by an Aggie. Were they bribing players or simply offering a form of entertainment that players could partake in if they choose?

 

[Garmel]

Let's put it in terms Democrats understand, by using the reasoning they use; Say you're a Democrat and you are going to hire a Special Counsel to investigate the Trump campaign for a hoax that the Democrats manufactured. Of the 17 people your hire to investigate the hoax, 13 need to be raging libs. The reason, per Dems, that you hire raging libs is because you want an adversarial investigator, not an impartial one, because who better to find wrongdoing than people that really care about the issue. That way, if you're exonerated, you can claim that even a biased investigation couldn't find wrong doing. Maybe the Maricopa audit team can indict a few Russians and find some tax fraud unrelated to the investigation, and the Republicans can pretend like those indictments had something to do with voter fraud, but that is as far as it will go.

Using their logic even having a prosecutor who thinks the man he's investigating is guilty has bias and shouldn't be on the case.
I believe there was fraud in Arizona. It doesn't mean I couldn't do an impartial investigation for fraud there. If I had those skills which I don't.
Using their same logic someone who absolutely doesn't believe there is fraud is too biased to do the job as well. Where the hell are we going to find the absolute neutral people to do this audit?

 

[mchammer]

If they actually believed it would, they would have hired a reputable auditor. Instead they went with a company that already believed the desired outcome. Frankly, it wasn't a smart move if they actually believed in or even truly suspected significant fraud, because of the bias and lack of expertise of the auditors. They don't have the credibility to be taken at their word.

It's like this. Suppose you're in line at a gas station after fueling up your hoopty and another redneck spits into his cup, points at a mole on your neck and says, "**** man, you got the cancer. Better go find yourself some chemo." Of course, Cletus and his mullet could be right, but are you going to accept his "diagnosis" and treatment plan? Probably not. You'll probably blow him off. If you look at it and it looks weird, you might drive to Texas where you can find doctors who know how to read and believe in things like washing their hands and taking a shower from time to time and have it looked at.

Ditto for Cyber Ninjas. Suppose they actually find the bamboo and claim significant voter fraud. Will people believe it? Perhaps, but it will have to supported and corroborated by a more reputable auditor. Basically, there will have to be an audit of the audit.

You realize everything you said also applies to the US media?

 

[humahuma]

I get audited multiple times a year, internal and external. Internal I want them to dig and find out if I am not doing something right . External different story. What’s in common the auditors will have a meeting after the audit and have questions. I can see this is the time where the media will try to discredit the auditors because they are asking questions when it’s a normal process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Using their logic even having a prosecutor who thinks the man he's investigating is guilty has bias and shouldn't be on the case.
I believe there was fraud in Arizona. It doesn't mean I couldn't do an impartial investigation for fraud there. If I had those skills which I don't.
Using their same logic someone who absolutely doesn't believe there is fraud is too biased to do the job as well. Where the hell are we going to find the absolute neutral people to do this audit?

Trust that this group of inexperienced election investigators will be able to put their bias aside. You can't trust the Maricopa County Supervisors to not be biased nor the 2 different certified and independent audit companies they hired. Talking out of both ends is hazardous to ones health...or credibility.

In a court of law even the appearance of bias by investigators or prosecutors can be enough to have a case tossed. This is WHY the appearance of impartiality is so important.

 

[iatrogenic]

For the third time, auditors have to present their factual findings. They don’t just get to give a pass/fail.

 

[Garmel]

For the third time, auditors have to present their factual findings. They don’t just get to give a pass/fail.

It's going to be their go-to-excuse if fraud is found. No amount of logic you present or evidence found will make any difference.

 

[Seattle Husker]

For the third time, auditors have to present their factual findings. They don’t just get to give a pass/fail.

We've long ago stopped agreeing on the facts. There was 0 factual evidence to prompt this investigation. Looking at the AZ Senate / Maricopa County Supervisors interactions (both R controlled bodies), neither side will agree on the facts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You realize everything you said also applies to the US media?

Yes, I do (with a few exceptions).

 

[Mr. Deez]

Using their logic even having a prosecutor who thinks the man he's investigating is guilty has bias and shouldn't be on the case.
I believe there was fraud in Arizona. It doesn't mean I couldn't do an impartial investigation for fraud there. If I had those skills which I don't.
Using their same logic someone who absolutely doesn't believe there is fraud is too biased to do the job as well. Where the hell are we going to find the absolute neutral people to do this audit?

A partial or biased investigator can still investigate. So can one who's not experienced in the relevant area. However, the less biased and more expertise the investigator has in the relevant area, the more credibility that investigator will have when he offers his findings.

 

[Mr. Deez]

(ignoring 2000 on the Reform ticket)

Honestly, I completely forgot that he ran in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket. He didn't seem as weird back then, and it's probably because he was next to guys like Jesse Ventura and John Hagelin, who was a Maharishi Mahesh Yogi disciple (though also a reputable physicist). It's easy to look normal next to them.

 

[Garmel]

A partial or biased investigator can still investigate. So can one who's not experienced in the relevant area. However, the less biased and more expertise the investigator has in the relevant area, the more credibility that investigator will have when he offers his findings.

I agree. That's why I don't understand your view on the Arizona thing. There are 4 companies that are dong the audit and one of the CEOs says he believes there is fraud there. The other 3 company's CEOs have stated nothing and the employees from all four haven't said a word. Big ******* whoop.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree. That's why I don't understand your view on the Arizona thing. There are 4 companies that are dong the audit and one of the CEOs says he believes there is fraud there. The other 3 company's CEOs have stated nothing and the employees from all four haven't said a word. Big ******* whoop.

How much election audit experience so those companies have, and what is their relationship to Cyber Ninjas? Are they operating independently of them or subcontracted?

 

[iatrogenic]

We've long ago stopped agreeing on the facts. There was 0 factual evidence to prompt this investigation. Looking at the AZ Senate / Maricopa County Supervisors interactions (both R controlled bodies), neither side will agree on the facts.

My facts are supported by evidence. Not sure what supports your assertions. If you’re going down the road of “an infinite way to interpret the facts”, which is a common lib /post modernist trait, I’ll just respond with, “there’s a limited viable way to interpret the facts”.