Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

OUBubba said:
Conclusion:
The Committee can confidently assert that it has been thorough in examination of numerous allegations of unlawful actions, improper procedures, fraud, vote theft, or any other description which would cause citizens to doubt the integrity of Michigan’s 2020 election results. Our clear finding is that citizens should be confident the results represent the true results of the ballots cast by the people of Michigan. The Committee strongly recommends citizens use a critical eye and ear toward those who have pushed demonstrably false theories for their own personal gain. We also conclude citizens should demand reasonable updates and reforms to close real vulnerabilities and unlawful activities that caused much of the doubt and questionability to flourish and could, if unchecked, be responsible for serious and disastrous fraud or confusion in the future.

Further, we commend the innumerable clerks, canvassers, staff, workers, and volunteers across Michigan that make the enormous complexity of elections operate so smoothly, so often. The complexity of the work and the dedication we discovered are astounding and worthy of our sincerest appreciation. We also commend the diligent citizens that took time to report problems and concerns they saw because they want and value fair and free elections above party or personal gain. If
Click to expand...

I'm sure glad we don't handle murder investigations like election investigations. Here's how it would go if it did:

Cop 1: we investigated, looked in the victim's pockets, did a little research to see where his family was at the time. No visible signs of trauma. Looks like the victim was not murdered after all. Case closed.

Cop 2: Let's get an autopsy done to make sure.

All the cops at the scene: NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Arizona's forensic audit can find ****. These kind of "investigations" like the one in Michigan won't. If you're not looking at the ballots it's a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
I'm sure glad we don't handle murder investigations like election investigations. Here's how it would go if it did:

Cop 1: we investigated, looked in the victim's pockets, did a little research to see where his family was at the time. No visible signs of trauma. Looks like the victim was not murdered after all. Case closed.

Cop 2: Let's get an autopsy done to make sure.

All the cops at the scene: NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Arizona's forensic audit can find ****. These kind of "investigations" like the one in Michigan won't. If you're not looking at the ballots it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

From another perspective, every jaywalking violation should be treated as a homicide.

Cop 1: We visibly saw them crossing the street and not using the cross walk. We should issue a citation.

Cop 2: We need to send the jaywalker off for a psychological evaluation. Jaywalking is an endemic problem. It's possible that they've been brainwashed by the Chinese to jaywalk thus we need to confirm that isn't the case. What about the cameras in the area? They all should be evaluated to ensure what we witnessed is accurate. When were those cameras calibrated? They could be hacked too. Better audit them to ensure the video isn't spoofed. One of the traffic cameras isn't working? Someone in the City must be trying to sabotage the cameras. We need to investigate them too.

Cop 1: It's just a jaywalking violation.
 
Last edited:

OK, I’ve sent the Declaration of Independence, Gen McIrneny, and now Gen Flynn discussing election fraud. Pompeo can’t say much he is still active. Maybe I’ll find something.
 
Attorney's for Guiliani, Powell and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell went to court today to urge a judge to toss Domion Voting's defamation suit against them. Not sure how open the judge is to their plight.

District Court Judge Carl Nichols appeared skeptical as he heard from attorneys for Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell, who are all asking the court to dismiss the lawsuits from the voting systems company.

"Is it your view that if someone makes patently false statements in a lawsuit and then repeats them to the press that the statements to the press are not actionable?" Nichols, a Trump appointee, asked Powell's attorney during a hearing on Thursday.
Click to expand...

Per some on this board this judge simply needs to wait longer and they'll all be validated. ;)
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-hol...e-latest-in-a-democratic-shift-200546674.html

Absolute stunning hypocrisy and flip-flopping:

“No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who is probably the most prominent voting rights advocate in the country, said last week.

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., similarly said he had “never been opposed to voter ID.” “I don’t know anybody who believes that people shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are,” he said.
 
bystander said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-hol...e-latest-in-a-democratic-shift-200546674.html

Absolute stunning hypocrisy and flip-flopping:

“No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who is probably the most prominent voting rights advocate in the country, said last week.

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., similarly said he had “never been opposed to voter ID.” “I don’t know anybody who believes that people shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are,” he said.
Click to expand...
He's absolutely full of Sh&%!!
 
bystander said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-hol...e-latest-in-a-democratic-shift-200546674.html

Absolute stunning hypocrisy and flip-flopping:

“No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat who is probably the most prominent voting rights advocate in the country, said last week.

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., similarly said he had “never been opposed to voter ID.” “I don’t know anybody who believes that people shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are,” he said.
Click to expand...
Go on and find quotes from them opposite of that. I have spoken similarly. ID is fine. I am required to do it in Oklahoma by people who know me. However, make ID’s readily available and free, if necessary for some.
 
OUBubba said:
Go on and find quotes from them opposite of that. I have spoken similarly. ID is fine. I am required to do it in Oklahoma by people who know me. However, make ID’s readily available and free, if necessary for some.
Click to expand...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/raphael-warnock-opposed-voter-id-laws-georgia

"All of these voter suppression laws saying we've got to have voter ID laws because if we don't they might vote twice. Are you kidding? Have you been in America these last several years? It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone twice," Warnock said in 2016.

"In a moment when they’re trying to make voting harder and harder — trying to cut down early voting, because they saw your strength. Dealing with these voter ID laws, this is not about voter verification, this is about voter suppression. They’re still playing the same games," Warnock said in a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 2015.

That same year, Warnock said that state voter ID laws passed after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 were designed to exclude women, Black people and the poor from voting, rather than to protect against voter fraud, the Dallas Morning News reported.

He denounced "unnecessary and unjustifiable voter ID laws" and said they were an affront to Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy in January 2012. "You can not remember Martin Luther King Jr. and dismember him at the same time," Warnock said, adding that voter ID laws "constitute, in my estimation, a poll tax."
 
OUBubba said:
Go on and find quotes from them opposite of that. I have spoken similarly. ID is fine. I am required to do it in Oklahoma by people who know me. However, make ID’s readily available and free, if necessary for some.
Click to expand...

Please. Really? The entire body of the Democrat party has fought ID's for voting for what feels like centuries. They called it voter suppression. They said everybody couldn't get one.

My God... I really can't believe your comment.
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/raphael-warnock-opposed-voter-id-laws-georgia

"All of these voter suppression laws saying we've got to have voter ID laws because if we don't they might vote twice. Are you kidding? Have you been in America these last several years? It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone twice," Warnock said in 2016.

"In a moment when they’re trying to make voting harder and harder — trying to cut down early voting, because they saw your strength. Dealing with these voter ID laws, this is not about voter verification, this is about voter suppression. They’re still playing the same games," Warnock said in a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 2015.

That same year, Warnock said that state voter ID laws passed after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 were designed to exclude women, Black people and the poor from voting, rather than to protect against voter fraud, the Dallas Morning News reported.

He denounced "unnecessary and unjustifiable voter ID laws" and said they were an affront to Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy in January 2012. "You can not remember Martin Luther King Jr. and dismember him at the same time," Warnock said, adding that voter ID laws "constitute, in my estimation, a poll tax."
Click to expand...

The denial of the Left's hypocrisy is unbelievable to me.
 
bystander said:
Please. Really? The entire body of the Democrat party has fought ID's for voting for what feels like centuries. They called it voter suppression. They said everybody couldn't get one.

My God... I really can't believe your comment.
Click to expand...
No. The "entire body" of the left has been like me. If you use logic and are fair, voter ID is reasonable. Here's some ways that some states have not used logic and fairness.
1. Expired ID's are not allowed. So an 88 year old who never drives any more may have an expired license. Seems reasonable that you could use it to verify who you are.
2. Student ID's are not allowed. Some students don't have driver's license or a license from that state and a student ID is a reasonable photo ID.
3. They disallowed amendments to voter ID laws that were designed to make ID's more attainable. They voted against funding for DMV's to be open after 5 one day per week. They voted against allowing the DMV to stay open on Saturday. Make them readily attainable if you're going to require them.

Also, I went through three google pages of abrams links. I don't find that she was against voter ID. She is doing what a lot of Dem's are doing, getting in line with Joe Manchin. It's what Manchin is preaching, compromise. Positions migrate. I was against being nice to Longhorns. Then I got to know some and a few of them changed my mind. :)
 
OUBubba said:
Go on and find quotes from them opposite of that. I have spoken similarly. ID is fine. I am required to do it in Oklahoma by people who know me. However, make ID’s readily available and free, if necessary for some.
Click to expand...

Laws like that have been proposed. They're pretty much always opposed by Democrats.
 
bystander said:
That was my question; did any of these people (the 10,000 assuming it's even true) vote?
Click to expand...
I don't know who voted or not. I can barely keep up with my businesses and my two daughters, but I will see what I can find on that, and revert back sometime later.
 
Bubba I find you a lot like me in that when others express beliefs aligned with mine I consider them in the norm, but when contradictory they’re wrong. You just go more to the extreme in your own defense than than do I. Just my opinion of course.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Laws like that have been proposed. They're pretty much always opposed by Democrats.
Click to expand...

There does appear to be a pivot in the works by the D's although for the smarter D's (Stacey Abrams?) you'll likely find it difficult to find any statements equivocally against VoterID. More than likely you'll find caveats.

The pivot on the left is from being against VoterID to fighting over what constitutes VoterID. A Student ID is just one example. I suspect mail-in balloting "voterID" is another example of where the new pivoted left would differ greatly from the Rs.

From memory GA is now requiring some voterID with mail-in ballots along with a witness. Not sure the details but I too don't have significant reservations if the voter has to add their Driver's license number, Student ID number (assuming schools gave this information to the State) or other cards. Requiring a "copy" to be appended to the ballot when printers are no longer easily accessible seems an overly arduous burden. This does put significant pressure on the states to expand access to ID acquisition. It's not lost on anyone that Texas' quickly closed/limited DMV offices after passing their VoterID laws. This would be another issue the D and R would fight over. If VoterID is a concern, then expand ID access.

Still, the VoterID is making a mountain out of a molehill. The amount of demonstrable fraud based on actual court cases is infinitesimal compared to that volume of voters. The number of cases where someone was caught committing voter fraud is the equivalent of 1 in 100's of thousands.
 
Seattle Husker said:
There does appear to be a pivot in the works by the D's although for the smarter D's (Stacey Abrams?) you'll likely find it difficult to find any statements equivocally against VoterID. More than likely you'll find caveats.

The pivot on the left is from being against VoterID to fighting over what constitutes VoterID. A Student ID is just one example. I suspect mail-in balloting "voterID" is another example of where the new pivoted left would differ greatly from the Rs.

From memory GA is now requiring some voterID with mail-in ballots along with a witness. Not sure the details but I too don't have significant reservations if the voter has to add their Driver's license number, Student ID number (assuming schools gave this information to the State) or other cards. Requiring a "copy" to be appended to the ballot when printers are no longer easily accessible seems an overly arduous burden. This does put significant pressure on the states to expand access to ID acquisition. It's not lost on anyone that Texas' quickly closed/limited DMV offices after passing their VoterID laws. This would be another issue the D and R would fight over. If VoterID is a concern, then expand ID access.

Still, the VoterID is making a mountain out of a molehill. The amount of demonstrable fraud based on actual court cases is infinitesimal compared to that volume of voters. The number of cases where someone was caught committing voter fraud is the equivalent of 1 in 100's of thousands.
Click to expand...


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/obama-voter-ids-can-barrier-ballot-box


Here are the facts:

  • Voter ID could disenfranchise as many as 11% of eligible voters in the United States; in Texas alone, around 600,000 could be impacted.
  • Many individuals throughout the states simply do not have the funds to pay for necessary transportation and documentation, like birth certificates, needed to obtain photo ID; even Judge Richard A. Posner, who authored an appeals court opinion in 2007 allowing photo ID in Indiana, later upheld by the Supreme Court, acknowledges this. Voter IDs cost money, and the poor often can’t get them. Guess who that leaves out at the polls?
  • In-person identification voter fraud is largely a myth, and voter ID requirements don’t address real voter fraud. Only a handful of fraud cases that ID requirements might have prevented have been reported since 2000, as determined by experts and the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ non-partisan watchdog agency. Many of the new voter ID laws require a specific form of ID that many people lack; these laws essentially are solutions in search of a problem.
  • People of color, the elderly, and young people are the most common victims of voter ID laws, given their lack of resources, and are also the most common communities subjected to voter disenfranchisement. Judge Posner now acknowledges these laws for what they are: partisan ploys aimed at keeping certain communities away on Election Day.
So, what happened?
 
bystander said:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/obama-voter-ids-can-barrier-ballot-box


Here are the facts:

  • Voter ID could disenfranchise as many as 11% of eligible voters in the United States; in Texas alone, around 600,000 could be impacted.
  • Many individuals throughout the states simply do not have the funds to pay for necessary transportation and documentation, like birth certificates, needed to obtain photo ID; even Judge Richard A. Posner, who authored an appeals court opinion in 2007 allowing photo ID in Indiana, later upheld by the Supreme Court, acknowledges this. Voter IDs cost money, and the poor often can’t get them. Guess who that leaves out at the polls?
  • In-person identification voter fraud is largely a myth, and voter ID requirements don’t address real voter fraud. Only a handful of fraud cases that ID requirements might have prevented have been reported since 2000, as determined by experts and the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ non-partisan watchdog agency. Many of the new voter ID laws require a specific form of ID that many people lack; these laws essentially are solutions in search of a problem.
  • People of color, the elderly, and young people are the most common victims of voter ID laws, given their lack of resources, and are also the most common communities subjected to voter disenfranchisement. Judge Posner now acknowledges these laws for what they are: partisan ploys aimed at keeping certain communities away on Election Day.
So, what happened?
Click to expand...

Could you put VoterID in place and address the points above? Like I said, details matter. D's will start to argue they'll support VoterID with expansion of ID access. Think of it as the D's calling the bluff of the R's. In the end, VoterID initiatives are only marginally about election security. R's want less people to vote, D's want more.
 
Last edited:
nashhorn said:
uhhhh, no. R’s want more R’s to vote, Dems want more D’s to vote, and that’s the truth.
Click to expand...

That's how they achieve the means though. The general perception is that R's are more passionate voters and willing to jump through hoops to vote, D's appear to the more casual/new voter that are less willing to jump through hoops and still vote. More barriers to voting is better for R's. It's all a power game.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Laws like that have been proposed. They're pretty much always opposed by Democrats.
Click to expand...
I believe those are all Democratic amendments to a Texas voter ID law that was in the legislature a few years ago that were all shot down by the GOP. I'm going off of Okie memory. So, take it for what it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top