Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

[iatrogenic]

Yep, what a bunch of ******* for obeying their civilian commanders. Insubordination and mutiny would be much better.

If it actually "stepped in," think of what that would mean. First, it would be acting under no legal or constitutional authority at all. In other words, it would be acting arbitrarily and completely untethered from the rule of law. Basically, the Constitution would be completely out the window.

Wouldn't a President elected via fraud be acting under no legal or constitutional authority? Wouldn't the Constitution be out the window already?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Wouldn't a President elected via fraud be acting under no legal or constitutional authority? Wouldn't the Constitution be out the window already?

Sounds like a SCOTUS issue...not military. The latter is a coup.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wouldn't a President elected via fraud be acting under no legal or constitutional authority? Wouldn't the Constitution be out the window already?

Maybe, but remember how the president is elected. The popular vote doesn't elect the him. He's elected by the electoral college. Though they generally vote according to the state popular vote, they don't have to. That's why the Florida Legislature was prepared to convene in 2000 and choose Bush electors even if the US Supreme Court hadn't intervened.

Well, the electoral votes have already been cast, and there has been no allegation if fraud in how those votes were cast.

At this point, impeachment and removal are the exclusive remedies for getting rid of Biden.

 

[Seattle Husker]

At this point, impeachment and removal are the exclusive remedies for getting rid of Biden.

That's the remedy, there are no do overs or decertification processes called out in the Constitution.

Is now a good time to remind everyone that at this point no widescale fraud has been proven and even with the ongoing partisan audit the results will be highly questioned to the point that they'll likely only be political fodder again not substantive enough to go anywhere in court.?

 

[iatrogenic]

Maybe, but remember how the president is elected. The popular vote doesn't elect the him. He's elected by the electoral college. Though they generally vote according to the state popular vote, they don't have to. That's why the Florida Legislature was prepared to convene in 2000 and choose Bush electors even if the US Supreme Court hadn't intervened.

Well, the electoral votes have already been cast, and there has been no allegation if fraud in how those votes were cast.

At this point, impeachment and removal are the exclusive remedies for getting rid of Biden.

There are other remedies of removing him. They just don't fall into the legal or nice categories. I would not be surprised if something were done if fraud is proven.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There are other remedies of removing him. They just don't fall into the legal or nice categories. I would not be surprised if something were done if fraud is proven.

If we're willing to go outside the legal boundaries, that is true. Biden can be threatened and if necessary, assassinated. My conclusions presume that sort of thing isn't on the menu.

 

[mb227]

At this point, impeachment and removal are the exclusive remedies for getting rid of Biden.

Of course, the problem there in such a scenario is that the party that participated in the fraud and improper installation would ALSO be the majority party and thus is not going to be motivated to vote in favor of impeachment, much less even bring the Articles to the floor. It becomes quite the quagmire...

 

[iatrogenic]

Of course, the problem there in such a scenario is that the party that participated in the fraud and improper installation would ALSO be the majority party and thus is not going to be motivated to vote in favor of impeachment, much less even bring the Articles to the floor. It becomes quite the quagmire...

True at this point. We'll see after the mid-terms. What are the odds he would do the right thing and just step down? About zero.

 

[iatrogenic]

My conclusions presume that sort of thing isn't on the menu.

In the words of Jen Psaki, "some people are saying this, not me".

 

[humahuma]

At this point I would rather have Biden then his VP, I think.

 

[iatrogenic]

At this point I would rather have Biden then his VP, I think.

Hey, she's out too.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Of course, the problem there in such a scenario is that the party that participated in the fraud and improper installation would ALSO be the majority party and thus is not going to be motivated to vote in favor of impeachment, much less even bring the Articles to the floor. It becomes quite the quagmire...

I'm just saying what the remedy is. I'm not saying it's good or always just.

 

[Monahorns]

Yep, what a bunch of ******* for obeying their civilian commanders. Insubordination and mutiny would be much better.

Yep, what a bunch of ******* for obeying their civilian commanders. Insubordination and mutiny would be much better.

Doing immoral things shouldn't be excused because some pencil neck at a desk tells them they should do it. The civilian commanders? Our government has civilian commanders? I thought they were supposed to uphold the Constitution and you yourself have said the CRT is a path towards getting rid of the Constitution.

Following orders isn't a cover for doing something bad.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Doing immoral things shouldn't be excused because some pencil neck at a desk tells them they should do it. The civilian commanders? Our government has civilian commanders? I thought they were supposed to uphold the Constitution and you yourself have said the CRT is a path towards getting rid of the Constitution.

Following orders isn't a cover for doing something bad.

What about illegal? Doing something illegal shouldn't be a cover for "doing something bad"?

You realize that "bad" is very subjective, right? In fact, "bad" in the context of these current fraud accusations are so politicized that "bad" is based on nothing factual but rather half-cocked theories and anecdotal stories that when the other side had a chance to rebut in court the courts nearly 100% sided with the rebuttal.

You'd be more accurate by saying "following orders isn't a cover for doing something good".

 

[Monahorns]

What about illegal? Doing something illegal shouldn't be a cover for "doing something bad"?

It's illegal to not teach CRT? I'm sorry that's nonsensical. It isn't a law that you have to. Even then civil disobedience was also illegal. I guess you were against MLK and Gandhi breaking unjust laws too. Or is it only the racist stuff you support?

Bear in mind I am not talking about the military removing Biden. I am only talking about these cowards having CRT taught to the military just because they were told to.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's illegal to not teach CRT? I'm sorry that's nonsensical. It isn't a law that you have to. Even then civil disobedience was also illegal. I guess you were against MLK and Gandhi breaking unjust laws too. Or is it only the racist stuff you support?

Bear in mind I am not talking about the military removing Biden. I am only talking about these cowards having CRT taught to the military just because they were told to.

I'm specifically referencing "military intervention", a coup. There is almost nothing in our current state of government that would justify a coup. Yes, that includes Donald Trump winning in 2024.

CRT is just the latest cultural boogeyman of the right. Yes, racism in the military is a problem which I described my experience before but more importantly the various incidents by white extremists with military backgrounds has demonstrated. For those of us sitting outside the military we may think it no big deal for the for student at West Point getting a well rounded education that exposure in the right context is perfectly fine. They're human, thinking you can indoctrinate all officer to be some ideal of patriot seems to be antithetical to the argument that you are advocating of wanting them to not be bad if ordered to do so. Sounds like we agree that "human" is important which is why I'm taken back by your stance on this.

Likening a teacher exposing students to CRT principles to MLK/Ghandi is a bit extreme, don't you think? You may want to ramp down the emotional response a tad.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Bringing this thread back on topic. A reprint of a Washington Examiner (Right) article.

Arizona judge presses for disclosure of donors funding Maricopa election audit

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp questioned Kory Langhofer, an attorney for Senate President Karen Fann who has resisted calls to release donor names. The judge noted Fann hired an outside firm, Cyber Ninjas, to conduct the audit, adding Fann has said the audit is an "important constitutional duty."

"Isn’t the public entitled to know who’s paying for this, besides the $150,000 the Senate has already appropriated?" the judge asked Langhofer at a hearing in Phoenix.

"That’s a great political argument," Langhofer said. "They should talk to the Legislature about it."

Langhofer said that donation records are not held by Fann or anyone within the Senate, adding that Cyber Ninjas maintains access to the list of unspecified donors who have contributed to the recount efforts. The attorney argued the arrangement puts the Senate outside of the scope of the state's public records disclosure law.

"The public has a right to know the information that's covered by the Public Records Act, but doesn't have a right to know all the information it deems important," Langhofer told the Washington Examiner on Friday, adding, "particularly if that information is not in the custody of the government."

This was a suit brought by some left-leaning watchdog org.

To summarize the Karen Fann's lawyer's position: We ensured that all the donations are going to our 3rd party contractor which avoids AZ's Public Records Act because they are not a government entity. So, doing work on behalf of the Senate doesn't actually mean you work for the Senate.

I don't know the AZ Public Records Act but based on experience with Federal Government 3rd party contracts I'd be surprised if Cyber Ninja's is as separate as Langhoffer claims. I keep coming back to the conservative Heritage Foundations recommendation that no private money should ever be used for election activities.

It's as dirty as Gov. Noem in SD using private money to pay for sending 50 National Guardsmen to the Texas-Mexico border.

 

[Monahorns]

I'm specifically referencing "military intervention", a coup. There is almost nothing in our current state of government that would justify a coup. Yes, that includes Donald Trump winning in 2024.

I am not advocating a coup. You aren't paying attention to what I was actually saying.

 

[Monahorns]

CRT is just the latest cultural boogeyman of the right. Yes, racism in the military is a problem which I described my experience before but more importantly the various incidents by white extremists with military backgrounds has demonstrated. For those of us sitting outside the military we may think it no big deal for the for student at West Point getting a well rounded education that exposure in the right context is perfectly fine. They're human, thinking you can indoctrinate all officer to be some ideal of patriot seems to be antithetical to the argument that you are advocating of wanting them to not be bad if ordered to do so. Sounds like we agree that "human" is important which is why I'm taken back by your stance on this.

Likening a teacher exposing students to CRT principles to MLK/Ghandi is a bit extreme, don't you think? You may want to ramp down the emotional response a tad.

CRT isn't just a bogeyman. It is a destructive religion with the goal of upending the country as we know it. I have been studying the ideas and implications for years now. The fact that you think it is a bogeyman just shows you are deceived by Leftist propaganda.

I know many people in the military. Racism probably exists less in general society at least among the lower ranks. I really have no idea what you are talking about white extremists with military backgrounds. You know much more about white extremists than I do. Makes me suspicious of your racial viewpoints. The sentences you write after that sound like Biden during a fever dream. Truly nonsensical garbage.

Your last paragraph is similarly illogical and brain dead. I simply used examples of civil disobedience. It can be used in different ways and to different contexts. My statement was that it is NOT illegal for a general to refuse to allow CRT to be taught. But even if it was, there is a thing called civil disobedience that can be used against unjust law. You may not think the causes are equal. Fine. They aren't. I wasn't equating the causes. I was saying the same means can be used to do what is right. That logic stands.

I'm not being emotional. I am explaining the gravity of the situation. That you are blind to it doesn't make me incorrect. It just means you are wrong. You are also a cover for tyranny and racism and theft. If your conscience doesn't pick that up just means you are unreachable.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Doing immoral things shouldn't be excused because some pencil neck at a desk tells them they should do it. The civilian commanders? Our government has civilian commanders? I thought they were supposed to uphold the Constitution and you yourself have said the CRT is a path towards getting rid of the Constitution.

Following orders isn't a cover for doing something bad.

Not defending CRT or teaching it, but who decides what's immoral or bad in the context of refusing to obey orders?

 

[Monahorns]

Not defending CRT or teaching it, but who decides what's immoral or bad in the context of refusing to obey orders?

Who decides in any situation in life? Individuals who are asked to do something against their conscience.

My initial statement was that the general's were woke and therefore not to be trusted to do any kind of protest against the Leftist revolution we are in the middle of. So I actually think they are complicit.

You said that they aren't doing this willingly. They are just obeying orders. If they aren't doing this willingly, then they are accepting this out of fear or apathy. But they are sworn to defend the Constitution. You have said yourself that the outcome of CRT which is being pushed is an end to our Constitutional order. I agree. Which means the generals are big p-ssies for allowing these ideas to be spread through their organizations. If the military goes woke, they will draw guns on civilians when the time comes regardless of the justification given by their "civilian commanders".

The infiltration of CRT wokesters into the military is a very scary development. Those who don't oppose it are going to be responsible for whatever evil comes out of it in the future.

I mean why did the normal Germans go along with everything the Nazis told them to do? Just obeying orders I guess.

 

[AC]

Brian Cates – The People Are The Storm, Durham Investigations Will Result In Arrests, Justice Is Coming

 

[AC]

Who decides in any situation in life? Individuals who are asked to do something against their conscience.

My initial statement was that the general's were woke and therefore not to be trusted to do any kind of protest against the Leftist revolution we are in the middle of. So I actually think they are complicit.

You said that they aren't doing this willingly. They are just obeying orders. If they aren't doing this willingly, then they are accepting this out of fear or apathy. But they are sworn to defend the Constitution. You have said yourself that the outcome of CRT which is being pushed is an end to our Constitutional order. I agree. Which means the generals are big p-ssies for allowing these ideas to be spread through their organizations. If the military goes woke, they will draw guns on civilians when the time comes regardless of the justification given by their "civilian commanders".

The infiltration of CRT wokesters into the military is a very scary development. Those who don't oppose it are going to be responsible for whatever evil comes out of it in the future.

I mean why did the normal Germans go along with everything the Nazis told them to do? Just obeying orders I guess.

My daughter left for Fort Hood this morning for a month. When I can, I’ll ask her about any CRT training. She’s never mentioned up to this point.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Who decides in any situation in life? Individuals who are asked to do something against their conscience.

My initial statement was that the general's were woke and therefore not to be trusted to do any kind of protest against the Leftist revolution we are in the middle of. So I actually think they are complicit.

You said that they aren't doing this willingly. They are just obeying orders. If they aren't doing this willingly, then they are accepting this out of fear or apathy. But they are sworn to defend the Constitution. You have said yourself that the outcome of CRT which is being pushed is an end to our Constitutional order. I agree. Which means the generals are big p-ssies for allowing these ideas to be spread through their organizations. If the military goes woke, they will draw guns on civilians when the time comes regardless of the justification given by their "civilian commanders".

The infiltration of CRT wokesters into the military is a very scary development. Those who don't oppose it are going to be responsible for whatever evil comes out of it in the future.

I mean why did the normal Germans go along with everything the Nazis told them to do? Just obeying orders I guess.

Or it could be that all the CRT talk and impact is being exaggerated and over-hyped because it makes a very good rube to fire up the far right. They LOVE cultural issues to get excited about.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mr. Deez may be onto something with the impeachment idea.

This is nutty BTW.

 

[Monahorns]

Or it could be that all the CRT talk and impact is being exaggerated and over-hyped because it makes a very good rube to fire up the far right. They LOVE cultural issues to get excited about.

Nope. That's not it.

The cultural issues are all initiated by the Left. Can't you see that? Conservatives don't bring make any of this stuff. But they (we) are rightly seeing the threat.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Who decides in any situation in life? Individuals who are asked to do something against their conscience.

My initial statement was that the general's were woke and therefore not to be trusted to do any kind of protest against the Leftist revolution we are in the middle of. So I actually think they are complicit.

You said that they aren't doing this willingly. They are just obeying orders. If they aren't doing this willingly, then they are accepting this out of fear or apathy. But they are sworn to defend the Constitution. You have said yourself that the outcome of CRT which is being pushed is an end to our Constitutional order. I agree. Which means the generals are big p-ssies for allowing these ideas to be spread through their organizations. If the military goes woke, they will draw guns on civilians when the time comes regardless of the justification given by their "civilian commanders".

The infiltration of CRT wokesters into the military is a very scary development. Those who don't oppose it are going to be responsible for whatever evil comes out of it in the future.

I mean why did the normal Germans go along with everything the Nazis told them to do? Just obeying orders I guess.

So individuals in the military should act on their own consciences. Kinda hard to have much of a command structure when each individual member of the military gets to act according to his individual morality.

Don't get the wrong idea. I detest CRT and think it has no place in the military or anywhere else. It's terrible and is a threat to the constitutional order. (Husker is wrong on this.) However, it isn't unconstitutional for it to become part of the military's training or education. Bad? Yes. Unconstitutional? No.

And let's not compare this to the Nuremberg Defense. These aren't unlawful orders. These aren't crimes against humanity. I'm no fan of CRT, but talking about it in the military is hardly comparable to ordering the deportation of Jews to Treblinka.

 

[Monahorns]

So individuals in the military should act on their own consciences. Kinda hard to have much of a command structure when each individual member of the military gets to act according to his individual morality.

You just justified the Mai Lai massacre and the Holocaust.

Don't get the wrong idea. I detest CRT and think it has no place in the military or anywhere else. It's terrible and is a threat to the constitutional order. (Husker is wrong on this.) However, it isn't unconstitutional for it to become part of the military's training or education. Bad? Yes. Unconstitutional? No.

Your logic is, it is a threat to the constitutional order but should be allowed to be taught to the military. That leads to revolutions. In fact we are at least 50% through one and most Rs can't see it because they are stuck in the 50s mindset.

If it's bad and a threat to our society, kill that sh!t now. Don't let it take you over. A little cancer won't kill you. So no need for treatment I guess.

And let's not compare this to the Nuremberg Defense. These aren't unlawful orders. These aren't crimes against humanity. I'm no fan of CRT, but talking about it in the military is hardly comparable to ordering the deportation of Jews to Treblinka.

The logic is the same even if the problem level isn't. Don't obfuscate problems like SH. Don't get caught in the wrong comparison. If you get an order and you know it's immoral. Don't do it. If you do you are a hypocrite and responsible for whatever bad results come from it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You just justified the Mai Lai massacre and the Holocaust.

No, I didn't. You're making a false equivalence.

Your logic is, it is a threat to the constitutional order but should be allowed to be taught to the military.

NO. IT SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT IN THE MILITARY. There's a difference between saying something shouldn't be taught and saying we should basically have a mutiny to stop it. It's our job as citizens to stop the order from coming. It's not the job of the military to refuse the orders if we fail because we chose a ****** candidate who did stupid things.

The logic is the same even if the problem level isn't.

No, it isn't.

If you get an order and you know it's immoral. Don't do it. If you do you are a hypocrite and responsible for whatever bad results come from it.

Suppose the bombardiers in the Enola Gay or in the B-17s over Germany had looked down at their targets and thought, "these bombs are going to kill a lot of innocent women and children for very little military purpose. I'm not going to be a part of that" and refused to release their weapons. Would that have been ok?

Do you think wars can be won if that sort of thing is tolerated? They can't be. That's why as a general rule, military personnel obey legal orders even if they disagree with them. We don't put it on the military to stop the civilian commanders from doing stupid things. That isn't their job.

 

[Monahorns]

No, I didn't. You're making a false equivalence.

No I'm not. You ignored what I said and added in your strawman. "Just obeying orders" is the same logic regardless of the level of the bad deed. I am objectively correct on this.

NO. IT SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT IN THE MILITARY. There's a difference between saying something shouldn't be taught and saying we should basically have a mutiny to stop it. It's our job as citizens to stop the order from coming. It's not the job of the military to refuse the orders if we fail because we chose a ****** candidate who did stupid things.

You basically say there are only certain ways of opposing wrong doing. It isn't unconstitutional to refuse to teach CRT. It isn't legal in criminal sense. It is insubordination of a thing that shouldn't be taught as you say. The Right has been losing in the US for 110 years because your attitude. It will end in lots of destruction.

No, it isn't.

Oh yeah? How about you explain why it's not. Explain how "just obeying orders" didn't lead to the US military teaching racist essentialism and introducing the destructive idea.

Suppose the bombardiers in the Enola Gay or in the B-17s over Germany had looked down at their targets and thought, "these bombs are going to kill a lot of innocent women and children for very little military purpose. I'm not going to be a part of that" and refused to release their weapons. Would that have been ok?

Sure. Why not? People have to make their own decisions on these things. They have to weigh the cost to themselves and how important the issue is to them. But I would never say a person should do something they think is seriously immoral just because someone else told them to. Maybe those in charge should do a better job of aligning their orders to military strategy and just war types of ideas. Your just arguing for mindless slaughter.

Do you think wars can be won if that sort of thing is tolerated? They can't be. That's why as a general rule, military personnel obey legal orders even if they disagree with them. We don't put it on the military to stop the civilian commanders from doing stupid things. That isn't their job.

Hm. If soldiers refuse to fight the war they can't win. But that isn't the issue I am discussing. The reality is that 99% of the time this isn't an issue. People who go into the military aren't disposed against fighting a war. They see the point. The commanders put together a good strategy and tactic. They get soldier buy in, and they go do the thing.

I get it. You can't have soldiers carrying out only half of their orders. Organizationally it doesn't work. That is true for any organization. That is why leaders have to have moral clarity. Get buy in. Receive feedback and even pushback in a constructive way. Change your plans. Allow tactical flexibility. Most people will be willing to compromise their morals a bit in a war time situation. Most people are willing to do something they were told to do by someone in authority even if wouldn't do it normally. I see CRT as serious enough to say no to. You don't. That is the only difference here. In your weighing it isn't worth disobedience. In mine it is.

But yes if soldiers refused to perform the fire bombings of Dresden, the world is a better place and Nazis still lose. I personally talked to a Vietnamese veteran who was in the South Vietnamese army. He was told to rape women because that is how war is waged. You just terrorized the populace. Of course he said he would never rape a women now. But to them that was war. If he hadn't raped those women how could he ever have fought the Viet Cong? If he had refused, the South Vietnamese would still have lost the war. He would still be a refugee in the US. But he wouldn't have been a rapist at least.

If we every become a Communist country, and we are in the middle of a type of color revolution. People will wonder how it ever could have happened to the US. The answer will be that people did as they were told by Communists. They didn't think the issue was so bad. They didn't want to stick their neck out and get criticized. But they will be responsible for the fall of the country into Communism. In the US it won't look like Soviet Communism. It will be a complicated mix of socialist capitalist corporations working with government agencies to steer us towards government/corporate control of everything. If only someone would have took a stand and said to themselves, "this is wrong. I am not going to do it."