Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

[lkainer]

So five TDs against us by a Texan in one game causes bad memories? Get this, we didn’t recruit him because he was to short!

I think it was six TDs but he is one inch shorter than Barry Sanders.

 

[Garmel]

Doesn't this give you some pause?

No, it doesn't. It's actually the smart, legal move. Don't get involved and let the law handle it.

 

[OUBubba]

Trump Campaign Knew Dominion Fraud Claims Were False, Memo Reportedly Shows—But Giuliani Still Pushed Them

 

[Garmel]

Trump Campaign Knew Dominion Fraud Claims Were False, Memo Reportedly Shows—But Giuliani Still Pushed Them

Which doesn't affect what happened in Maricopa even if your story is true.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No, it doesn't. It's actually the smart, legal move. Don't get involved and let the law handle it.

I understand this and agree in principle. It's what I've advocated on election fraud claims the whole time. However, it's out of character for these folks. Up to this point, this whole movement has largely been extrajudicial and intentionally so. However, when it's time to actually name names and face real scrutiny, it's punting over to the AG. What happens if the AG doesn't prosecute? What happens if the AG prosecutes but these unknown individuals walk? Do we acknowledge defeat and go home, or do we start attacking the AG and the courts?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong I’m not a Lawyer, but there was substantial reason to believe the judicial system would not hear this case legally. SCOTUS would not even hear it.

They won't hear them if the plaintiffs don't meet the constitutional standing requirements.

 

[Garmel]

I understand this and agree in principle. It's what I've advocated on election fraud claims the whole time. However, it's out of character for these folks. Up to this point, this whole movement has largely been extrajudicial and intentionally so. However, when it's time to actually name names and face real scrutiny, it's punting over to the AG. What happens if the AG doesn't prosecute? What happens if the AG prosecutes but these unknown individuals walk? Do we acknowledge defeat and go home, or do we start attacking the AG and the courts?

I think you're missing the brilliance of the move. Instead of naming names and making people clam up or go into hiding you may entice someone to come forward and look for immunity. They then spill their guts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think you're missing the brilliance of the move. Instead of naming names and making people clam up or go into hiding you may entice someone to come forward and look for immunity. They then spill their guts.

I see. So what's the game plan if that doesn't happen?

 

[Garmel]

I see. So what's the game plan if that doesn't happen?

They may or might not release the names if the AG doesn't respond. However, releasing names now produces no tactical advantage.

 

[AC]

Also, keep in mind. If no constitutional remedy presents itself which Deez could be right about. Then devolution, which uses the declaration of independence, not the constitution, to institute military tribunals instead of court proceedings, since the State Senate's would not hear these cases. If we don't get State level decertification, and we don't get devolution bringing in military tribunals. Then we have no justice system, which likely means every branch of Government and the Military are entirely compromised, or controlled. It should be extremely obvious now, that the media is nearly 100% compromised. Even Tucker Carlson cannot say what he really thinks or he get's fired. He knows that.

 

[OUBubba]

Military Tribunals should be a West Mall drinking game.

 

[Seattle Husker]

They may or might not release the names if the AG doesn't respond. However, releasing names now produces no tactical advantage.

That's fair. It it's a legal problem it should be in the domain of the AG to pursue. We all know that AZ AG is receptive to the audit as he's running for Governor.

If county reps illegally deleted election data they need to be held accountable. Not ready to take Cotton's word for it as he's had some high visibility claims debunked already, claims specifically related to deleted data that ultimately was "found". I'll wait for the legal system to do a real investigation before leaping.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Military Tribunals should be a West Mall drinking game.

LOL! Love the circular logic that essentially says if we aren't allowed to have a Banana Republic then we are a Banana Republic. Everyone is compromised...except the QAnon crowd.

 

[Garmel]

That's fair. It it's a legal problem it should be in the domain of the AG to pursue. We all know that AZ AG is receptive to the audit as he's running for Governor.

He's actually running for senator I believe. I might be wrong on that. You also have to be receptive when the auditors say they have visual evidence of the perpetrators on those machines deleting files, especially if the visual evidence is good enough that you can ID people. The fact is that Maricopa can not come back and say they weren't deleting anything but just doing a few other things on there. The machines were under subpoena and shouldn't have been touched. The AG has been open to an investigation because he sees the crap they have pulled so far with withholding subpoenaed material.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He's actually running for senator I believe. I might be wrong on that.

You're correct, I was wrong on the office he announced his next candidacy for.

You also have to be receptive when the auditors say they have visual evidence of the perpetrators on those machines deleting files, especially if the visual evidence is good enough that you can ID people.

Claims of visual evidence by a biased party don't always stand up to scrutiny. Remember the GA election where Rudy claimed nefarious activity captured on video? He held a press conference...it was all the rage in conspiracy corners of the internet. It didn't hold up to scrutiny at all and was determined to be a normal process.

You might need to ask yourself why Cotton spoke at all about the claims of video of destruction of data. If this truly is a legal matter why put the limit on naming names? Isn't the claim of a video of destruction of data somewhat prejudicial to the investigation, especially if his team is turning over the video?

The fact is that Maricopa can not come back and say they weren't deleting anything but just doing a few other things on there. The machines were under subpoena and shouldn't have been touched. The AG has been open to an investigation because he sees the crap they have pulled so far with withholding subpoenaed material.

Again, let the legal process play out. At this point all you have is claims by a 3rd party that is being paid by people that believe fraud occurred and is now already tied to work in other audits (Texas).

 

[Garmel]

You're correct, I was wrong on the office he announced his next candidacy for.



Claims of visual evidence by a biased party don't always stand up to scrutiny. Remember the GA election where Rudy claimed nefarious activity captured on video? He held a press conference...it was all the rage in conspiracy corners of the internet. It didn't hold up to scrutiny at all and was determined to be a normal process.



Again, let the legal process play out. At this point all you have is claims by a 3rd party that is being paid by people that believe fraud occurred and is now already tied to work in other audits (Texas).

The problem with your theory is that what he said can easily be shown to be BS if he isn't being truthful. He would ruin his career, get sued, and possibly go to jail if the info he said wasn't true. If you want to talk about bias then you shouldn't buy into what election officials are telling you. They are trying to save their jobs and keep away from legal trouble. That Ga situation you mentioned was far from normal operations. It's not normal to claim a water situation, tell the press you're shutting down for the night, run everybody out and then come back so no impartial observers can watch.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Seattle Husker]

The problem with your theory is that what he said can easily be shown to be BS if he isn't being truthful. He would ruin his career, get sued, and possibly go to jail if the info he said wasn't true. If you want to talk about bias then you shouldn't buy into what election officials are telling you. They are trying to save their jobs and keep away from legal trouble. That Ga situation you mentioned was far from normal operations. It's not normal to claim a water situation, tell the press you're shutting down for the night, run everybody out and then come back so no impartial observers can watch.

Defamation is one of the hardest court cases to win, by design. As we've seen over and over, there is little recourse for claims unless you have deep pockets on both sides of the lawsuit (see Dominion suit against Guiliani, Powell, etc.). Still, nobody pursued any lawsuit against Guiliani for his very public attempt to wrongly claim malfeasence which the GA SOS office later said was SOP after their investigation.

In most cases, there is very little recourse for Cotton's claims and in fact add more opportunity to additional work (read: Texas).

Remember in May/June he very publicly claimed Maricopa County deleted data but a week later said it was "found" and later changed his claim to "recovered" while offering not details on how/why. Did that impact his credibility? Seems to me he continued getting paid as part of the audit and now is being considered for similar work in Texas per reports.

He would ruin his career, get sued, and possibly go to jail if the info he said wasn't true.

In other words, the exact opposite of what you claimed is occurring because down is up and up is down in "stolen election" circles.

 

[Garmel]

Defamation is one of the hardest court cases to win, by design. As we've seen over and over, there is little recourse for claims unless you have deep pockets on both sides of the lawsuit (see Dominion suit against Guiliani, Powell, etc.). Still, nobody pursued any lawsuit against Guiliani for his very public attempt to wrongly claim malfeasence which the GA SOS office later said was SOP after their investigation.

In most cases, there is very little recourse for Cotton's claims and in fact add more opportunity to additional work (read: Texas).

Remember in May/June he very publicly claimed Maricopa County deleted data but a week later said it was "found" and later changed his claim to "recovered" while offering not details on how/why. Did that impact his credibility? Seems to me he continued getting paid as part of the audit and now is being considered for similar work in Texas per reports.



In other words, the exact opposite of what you claimed is occurring because down is up and up is down in "stolen election" circles.

I don't remember him saying "found". Perhaps that was something the MSM said or you might be right. he also might have misspoke. "Recovered" can mean deleted and he said that the file was deleted.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Military Tribunals should be a West Mall drinking game.

Coach, that might your best post. That's not saying much, but credit where it's due.

 

[AC]

That was funny. I laughed too!

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't remember him saying "found". Perhaps that was something the MSM said or you might be right. he also might have misspoke. "Recovered" can mean deleted and he said that the file was deleted.

I'm too lazy to go back and pull the information but he clearly stated "found" in the hearing then when that became a big topic of discussion he clarified his statement later in the day to say it was "recovered" and had been "deleted" without giving any more detail. Again, he's just some private PI at this point thus has little accountability. Do you think Maricopa County has the deep pockets to sue for defamation against someone who clearly has limited resources? Cotton may be correct and he may be talking out of his rear end but there is very limited recourse for being wrong and lot's of incentive (read: donation $$$) for making claims.

 

[Garmel]

I'm too lazy to go back and pull the information but he clearly stated "found" in the hearing then when that became a big topic of discussion he clarified his statement later in the day to say it was "recovered" and had been "deleted" without giving any more detail. Again, he's just some private PI at this point thus has little accountability. Do you think Maricopa County has the deep pockets to sue for defamation against someone who clearly has limited resources? Cotton may be correct and he may be talking out of his rear end but there is very limited recourse for being wrong and lot's of incentive (read: donation $$$) for making claims.

He could have meant he found the deleted files. Maricopa County could easily get the money with donors. I'm more concerned with what's coming out of Maricopa then the auditors. They are deliberately lying to people who are not well informed on what's going on here. They make a statement on Twitter that the auditors have everything that a credible auditor needs. Of course they won't hand over the routers, passwords, and splunk logs. How do you do a complete forensic audit without them? They're lying. They also made a statement that said the draft that was released before the report proved that there was no fraud because the vote totals agreed. They knew damn well that wasn't the contention of all of this, it was the possibility of illegal votes. They were deceiving the low informed while people like me who are reading and paying attention to the details were just shaking our heads.

 

[Garmel]

I'll just add that if Cotton is lying I want to see him prosecuted.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He could have meant he found the deleted files.

It's possible. It's also possible he made a freudian slip. We'll never know because there isn't any recourse.

Maricopa County could easily get the money with donors.

Please tell me you don't think "donors" are now the appropriate way to fund public entity lawsuits. Using "donors" to fund this investigation was so atypical and the reason that nobody except the "stolen election" believers will believe the results.

They also made a statement that said the draft that was released before the report proved that there was no fraud because the vote totals agreed. They knew damn well that wasn't the contention of all of this, it was the possibility of illegal votes.

Let's unpack this claim that it wasn't about the vote count. If not, they why did then why the need for 1,500 volunteers to count the ballots? If the goal was simply an analysis of the voter rolls and technology, which is what you ostensibly are claiming, they could have saved million$ by not re-counting the ballots.

I'd argue that because the ballot counting didn't discover anything nefarious they are pivoting to focus on other areas. Rather than simply saying, the count was accurate but we found questions about voter participation it's instead "the ballot count doesn't matter, it was never in question". That's 100% revisionist history.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'll just add that if Cotton is lying I want to see him prosecuted.

We agree but do you think Maricopa County Supv want to run on the platform "we spent limited tax payer resources on a impossible to win defamation suit against an entity with limited financial resources that only benefited the Board of Supervisors"? Yeah, I don't think that's a winning platform for reelection either.

 

[Garmel]

I'd argue that because the ballot counting didn't discover anything nefarious they are pivoting to focus on other areas. Rather than simply saying, the count was accurate but we found questions about voter participation it's instead "the ballot count doesn't matter, it was never in question". That's 100% revisionist history.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Because it's a part of the auditing process you have to be sure and count. It was a contention at the beginning but after the final count it wasn't. After that they went to other things. We agree there. The Epoch Times did a story months ago with the auditors saying that the final count wasn't missing ballots while many of the conservative goofballs kept talking about a wide gap. Maricopa knew it wasn't a contention but played with people's emotions while pushing the false MSM narrative. 100% deception on their part.

 

[Garmel]

If I used the word "never" in regards to the counted handcount that wasn't a true fact. Not a word I should have used and poor wording on my part.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Because it's a part of the auditing process you have to be sure and count. It was a contention at the beginning but after the final count it wasn't. After that they went to other things. We agree there. The Epoch Times did a story months ago with the auditors saying that the final count wasn't missing ballots while many of the conservative goofballs kept talking about a wide gap. Maricopa knew it wasn't a contention but played with people's emotions while pushing the false MSM narrative. 100% deception on their part.

There are many different types of audits. Risk-limiting audits, sampling, recounts (hand and electronic), physical security, voter rolls etc. AZ Senate went with "all of the above" because it was a throw as much **** against the wall as possible and see what sticks strategy.

I don't read Epoch Time so I'll have to take your word for it. I'll just harken back to the original claims...40k Chinese ballots inserted into the pool, sharpies causing overvotes, and any other number of hairbrained claims. Nearly all of those relate to the voter count as they fed a belief that Trump won the election (count) and it wasn't being reflected correctly. You don't think donors were expecting the 12k Biden vote lead to disappear in a recount? How often has the term "decertification" been used? That's a term used with the goal of overturning the election.

Ask yourself, if this was just about voter integrity then why audit only 1 race on the ballot?

 

[Garmel]

There are many different types of audits. Risk-limiting audits, sampling, recounts (hand and electronic), physical security, voter rolls etc. AZ Senate went with "all of the above" because it was a throw as much **** against the wall as possible and see what sticks strategy.

I don't read Epoch Time so I'll have to take your word for it. I'll just harken back to the original claims...40k Chinese ballots inserted into the pool, sharpies causing overvotes, and any other number of hairbrained claims. Nearly all of those relate to the voter count as they fed a belief that Trump won the election (count) and it wasn't being reflected correctly. You don't think donors were expecting the 12k Biden vote lead to disappear in a recount? How often has the term "decertification" been used? That's a term used with the goal of overturning the election.

Ask yourself, if this was just about voter integrity then why audit only 1 race on the ballot?

It actually covered the senate races as well.