racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 "The AP should report it straight. The auditors did not back down from the assertion that files were deleted, and it’s just playing word games to say they did." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 45 minutes ago, akvanden said: Because it's going to be a big game of he-said/she-said, as example by the database. So then the courts will get involved, and then when all is said and done, it will be like the other 60+ lawsuits that were thrown out because seemingly so many people are unable to grasp the legal term "meritless." And then the journey will continue, down conspiracy road. The forensic auditors have never stated that. That comes from the bos. Total bs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, 1jkw said: Because anybody who represents themselves in a legal dispute has an idiot for a client. For Christ sakes, it's a fucking subpoena. Yah they better lawyer up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, racer254 said: "The AP should report it straight. The auditors did not back down from the assertion that files were deleted, and it’s just playing word games to say they did." Unfuckingbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said: Unfuckingbelievable. It really is. Constant defense of possible election fraud. WHY? Honestly why would anyone on this site try to defend something like this, then try to pass it off as if nothing happened? FFS, let them do the necessary Forensic Analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: For Christ sakes, it's a fucking subpoena. Yah they better lawyer up A subpoena just means they have to legally turn over the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 9 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: For Christ sakes, it's a fucking subpoena. Yah they better lawyer up I bet you said the same thing when they wanted Trump to testify, NOT. Trump wouldn't even testify in person with a team of lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, racer254 said: "The AP should report it straight. The auditors did not back down from the assertion that files were deleted, and it’s just playing word games to say they did." They remotely undeleted them the day before though, so that's good. This has some good info pertaining to the claims made by Doug Logan. Read it. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/election-officials-call-arizona-audit-bombshell-a-dud/article_a6cc2b9a-e710-11eb-b8b5-a398a78c28c2.html And thank goodness a judge has ruled they must make all finding thus far public record. Why they are keeping all this fraud so secret seems strange. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2021/07/16/judge-pulls-back-curtain-arizona-sham-election-audit/7990265002/ On Thursday, however, Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp pulled back the drapery, ordering that Fann and the Republican-controlled Senate make available “any and all” records, including communications, planning, procedures, as well as who exactly is paying for this fiasco, to the nonprofit group American Oversight, which sued Fann and the Senate under public records law. The judge in his ruling could not be more clear in dismissing that argument. He wrote, “The court completely rejects Senate defendants’ argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not ‘public bodies’ they are exempt from the (public records law).” Adding, “It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.” Edited July 20, 2021 by akvanden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Let's not forget Mike Lindell - what do you guys think he'll announce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosting Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 It really is amazing all of the false flags and lame strawman arguments being made to some how discredit an election audit. Why? what is so frightening to find? that the election was a fraud or legit which one scares you the most? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airflite1 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 44 minutes ago, akvanden said: They remotely undeleted them the day before though, so that's good. This has some good info pertaining to the claims made by Doug Logan. Read it. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/election-officials-call-arizona-audit-bombshell-a-dud/article_a6cc2b9a-e710-11eb-b8b5-a398a78c28c2.html And thank goodness a judge has ruled they must make all finding thus far public record. Why they are keeping all this fraud so secret seems strange. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2021/07/16/judge-pulls-back-curtain-arizona-sham-election-audit/7990265002/ On Thursday, however, Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp pulled back the drapery, ordering that Fann and the Republican-controlled Senate make available “any and all” records, including communications, planning, procedures, as well as who exactly is paying for this fiasco, to the nonprofit group American Oversight, which sued Fann and the Senate under public records law. The judge in his ruling could not be more clear in dismissing that argument. He wrote, “The court completely rejects Senate defendants’ argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not ‘public bodies’ they are exempt from the (public records law).” Adding, “It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.” I agree with this but I also agree Hilary should have been prosecuted for destroying all the evidence when she wiped her server and destroyed phones, and then had the gall to joke about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 53 minutes ago, akvanden said: They remotely undeleted them the day before though, so that's good. This has some good info pertaining to the claims made by Doug Logan. Read it. https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/election-officials-call-arizona-audit-bombshell-a-dud/article_a6cc2b9a-e710-11eb-b8b5-a398a78c28c2.html And thank goodness a judge has ruled they must make all finding thus far public record. Why they are keeping all this fraud so secret seems strange. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2021/07/16/judge-pulls-back-curtain-arizona-sham-election-audit/7990265002/ On Thursday, however, Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp pulled back the drapery, ordering that Fann and the Republican-controlled Senate make available “any and all” records, including communications, planning, procedures, as well as who exactly is paying for this fiasco, to the nonprofit group American Oversight, which sued Fann and the Senate under public records law. The judge in his ruling could not be more clear in dismissing that argument. He wrote, “The court completely rejects Senate defendants’ argument that since (Cyber Ninjas) and the subvendors are not ‘public bodies’ they are exempt from the (public records law).” Adding, “It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.” I think you need to look at Judge Kemp a little closer. http://www.therobingroom.com/arizona/Judge.aspx?ID=6070 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 23 minutes ago, racer254 said: I think you need to look at Judge Kemp a little closer. http://www.therobingroom.com/arizona/Judge.aspx?ID=6070 So you don't think the audit should be public? Or if another judge made the ruling, should the outcome have been different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 8 minutes ago, akvanden said: So you don't think the audit should be public? Or if another judge made the ruling, should the outcome have been different? I am skeptical as to who and why. WASHINGTON — Concerned by the shortage of government experience and early missteps by Trump administration officials —including President Trump — a group of lawyers is launching a watchdog organization that will seek to track the administration's ethics and expose potential conflicts, fraud or other wrongdoing. The organization, “American Oversight,” which says it is nonpartisan despite some of its founders having deep ties to Democrats, will focus on prying loose documents through public records requests and lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, racer254 said: I am skeptical as to who and why. WASHINGTON — Concerned by the shortage of government experience and early missteps by Trump administration officials —including President Trump — a group of lawyers is launching a watchdog organization that will seek to track the administration's ethics and expose potential conflicts, fraud or other wrongdoing. The organization, “American Oversight,” which says it is nonpartisan despite some of its founders having deep ties to Democrats, will focus on prying loose documents through public records requests and lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. It's a simple question - do you agree with the ruling that it should be made public, regardless of judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, akvanden said: It's a simple question - do you agree with the ruling that it should be made public, regardless of judge. Yeah, public to EVERYONE. Not just a bunch of lawyers with ties to democrats. You know, the group "American Oversight." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 6 minutes ago, racer254 said: Yeah, public to EVERYONE. Not just a bunch of lawyers with ties to democrats. You know, the group "American Oversight." Good news! That's what the judge ordered! You can thank the group "American Oversight" for suing to make it public. Because right now the AZ senate republicans aren't allowing the democrats into the meeting where the cyber ninjas are keeping them updated on their findings. That's not fair.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, akvanden said: Good news! That's what the judge ordered! You can thank the group "American Oversight" for suing to make it public. Because right now the AZ senate republicans aren't allowing the democrats into the meeting where the cyber ninjas are keeping them updated on their findings. That's not fair.... I can't stand partisan bullshit like that, and if they are not allowing democrats into the meeting, then I don't agree with that,. The judge didn't order public to everyone, He ordered them to give any information to American Oversight. American Oversight is a partisan POS group, just like CREW was. Both run by democrats. And judge Kemp is known to be partisan as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 6 minutes ago, racer254 said: I can't stand partisan bullshit like that, and if they are not allowing democrats into the meeting, then I don't agree with that,. The judge didn't order public to everyone, He ordered them to give any information to American Oversight. American Oversight is a partisan POS group, just like CREW was. Both run by democrats. And judge Kemp is known to be partisan as well. Hey, we can agree on something - cheers. And yes, 100% make public to everyone. They should have weekly public updates, the good and the bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, akvanden said: Hey, we can agree on something - cheers. And yes, 100% make public to everyone. They should have weekly public updates, the good and the bad. Yep, I am all for that. None of this leaked shit from an anonymous source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 30 minutes ago, akvanden said: Good news! That's what the judge ordered! You can thank the group "American Oversight" for suing to make it public. Because right now the AZ senate republicans aren't allowing the democrats into the meeting where the cyber ninjas are keeping them updated on their findings. That's not fair.... Don't you find it ironic that the group American Oversight wants this to be public, yet American Oversight won't disclose it's donor list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, racer254 said: Don't you find it ironic that the group American Oversight wants this to be public, yet American Oversight won't disclose it's donor list? Could be, but I don't know much about them. I'd just has happy if a conservative group sued for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 56 minutes ago, akvanden said: Good news! That's what the judge ordered! You can thank the group "American Oversight" for suing to make it public. Because right now the AZ senate republicans aren't allowing the democrats into the meeting where the cyber ninjas are keeping them updated on their findings. That's not fair.... The Dems refused to take any part. It was supposed to be a joint venture bipartisan and they wanted no part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 So when the forensic audit is over and they find no large scale voter fraud will you guys admit you were duped`or will there be a new excuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akvanden Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: The Dems refused to take any part. It was supposed to be a joint venture bipartisan and they wanted no part. OK. Last Thursday: "But the county was not allowed to provide a response at Thursday's hearing at the state Senate as they were not invited, and public testimony was not allowed." "On Thursday, Logan and Cotton presented their findings to date to Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, who chairs the Judiciary Committee. Democrats on the panel were not allowed to participate or ask questions. " Tell me some more about the bipartisan cyber ninjas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.