Maricopa County Leaders call on AZ Senate to stop sham investigation of 2020 election

[KCfromNC]

Huh? Ever heard of a paraphrase? Do you think distracting GOP observers is OK?

Given the alleged booklet was entitled "Tactics to Distract GOP Challengers.", this question seems moot. Or just another attempt to distort what actually happened.

 

[KCfromNC]

As I said, there was plenty of wrongdoing at many levels, far beyond the legitimate distancing problems because of COVID.

I don't think the disagreement is about what you've said, more there being any reason to believe what you've said is true.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is evidence, I previously informed you that a sworn affidavit is evidence

Has anything been presented other than complaints about having to social distance during a global pandemic, and perhaps the existence of a book with a suspiciously shifting title?

 

[KCfromNC]

It must take heaps of energy to stay so mad for so long.

More or less than to continue to believe this stuff even after dozens of court cases demonstrated there's no reason to?

 

[Valletta]

Valetta regards the affidavits as evidence of fraud even though no fraud is alleged in them. Essentially they are complaints about the behaviour of ballot counters in relation to observers.

I pointed out that, contrary to assertions, there was more at play than legitimate COVID related disputes.
Blocking, tricking, and misleading observers (along with harassing observers) are some of the examples. There were other complaints about challenges not being handled lawfully, Black Lives Matters logos worn by election officials in violation of law. There were things noted like stacks of ballots in pristine condition all marked for Biden with the exact same marking on each ballot, ballots being transported over state lines, things like that. It's sad that so many people are unaware of these facts.

 

[wing2000]

So I note the Arizona audit is due to finish this week. Wonder how long until the report comes out.

...I'm sure it won't be long until pre-determined report will be released....then again, they may drag it out until some another "audit" is started in another state. Gotta keep hope alive for Venetta and the OAN fan base.

 

[Whyayeman]

I pointed out that, contrary to assertions, there was more at play than legitimate COVID related disputes.
Blocking, tricking, and misleading observers (along with harassing observers) are some of the examples. There were other complaints about challenges not being handled lawfully, Black Lives Matters logos worn by election officials in violation of law. There were things noted like stacks of ballots in pristine condition all marked for Biden with the exact same marking on each ballot, ballots being transported over state lines, things like that. It's sad that so many people are unaware of these facts.

These stories have circulated ever since the election. The problem is verification. The issues were not presented to the court; the affidavits put before the court did not make these allegations.

And there is the rub. Why not? Should we believe the evidence was in the possession of the plaintiffs in the form of affidavits but that they did not present them for some reason? I think the reason might be that these stories have no foundation. They did not appear in the affidavits I read.

 

[Belk]

I pointed out that, contrary to assertions, there was more at play than legitimate COVID related disputes.
Blocking, tricking, and misleading observers (along with harassing observers) are some of the examples. There were other complaints about challenges not being handled lawfully, Black Lives Matters logos worn by election officials in violation of law. There were things noted like stacks of ballots in pristine condition all marked for Biden with the exact same marking on each ballot, ballots being transported over state lines, things like that. It's sad that so many people are unaware of these facts.

Yet for some odd reason no court in the land found this as valid. It is almost as if spurious complaints don't matter even if people "swore" to them.

 

[Valletta]

These stories have circulated ever since the election. The problem is verification. The issues were not presented to the court; the affidavits put before the court did not make these allegations.

And there is the rub. Why not? Should we believe the evidence was in the possession of the plaintiffs in the form of affidavits but that they did not present them for some reason? I think the reason might be that these stories have no foundation. They did not appear in the affidavits I read.

They are not "stories," this is what is found in evidence--Americans have sworn such things under penalty of perjury. As we know, even attorneys have been threatened, but courageous citizens were willing to come forward. In a civil lawsuit you don't even need evidence for it to be accepted and an evidentiary hearing called for, all you need is a belief. In the case I filed the judge magistrate finally ordered attorneys from government agencies fly to my home state and then the judge questioned them. You see this is what a judge who is doing his job should do--question those involved. The judge even let me speak in chambers. Judges should not be intimidated, as to election allegations judges should have held evidentiary hearings where they could question witnesses and where plaintiffs could seek evidence.

 

[Whyayeman]

What people swore in the affidavits used in the case did not mention 'blocking', 'tricking', wearing slogans or passing round a suspicious booklet. The court document cited here does not include them.

Valletta said - Judges should not be intimidated, as to election allegations judges should have held evidentiary hearings where they could question witnesses and where plaintiffs could seek evidence.

I think everyone would agree with that. But was that judge intimidated? Was that judge somehow prevented from questioning the witnesses whose affidavits were before the court? It is the first I have heard of it. The tone of the report Valletta linked to suggests no such thing.

Newspaper reports are not always trustworthy; reporters do not always report truthfully what people tell them. And sometimes people tell them what they want to hear. I would trust the affidavits more readily. The thing is, as it always has been, the affidavits do not allege deliberate organised fraud.

 

[Valletta]

What people swore in the affidavits used in the case did not mention 'blocking', 'tricking', wearing slogans or passing round a suspicious booklet. The court document cited here does not include them.

Valletta said - Judges should not be intimidated, as to election allegations judges should have held evidentiary hearings where they could question witnesses and where plaintiffs could seek evidence.

I think everyone would agree with that. But was that judge intimidated? Was that judge somehow prevented from questioning the witnesses whose affidavits were before the court? It is the first I have heard of it. The tone of the report Valletta linked to suggests no such thing.

Newspaper reports are not always trustworthy; reporters do not always report truthfully what people tell them. And sometimes people tell them what they want to hear. I would trust the affidavits more readily. The thing is, as it always has been, the affidavits do not allege deliberate organised fraud.

I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to "the case."

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to "the case."

The one you cited:

State of Michigan in the Third Judicial circuit Court in the County of Maine, November 13 2020, presided over by Hon. Timothy M Kenny.

The one with those affidavits you are so keen on but which do not allege any fraudulent vote counting.

 

[Valletta]

The one you cited:

State of Michigan in the Third Judicial circuit Court in the County of Maine, November 13 2020, presided over by Hon. Timothy M Kenny.

The one with those affidavits you are so keen on but which do not allege any fraudulent vote counting.

I don't recall citing that specific case. There are all kinds of potential crimes related to an election, the goal is to make sure that every legal vote, and only legal votes, are counted. The full forensic audit is so in the future your vote and my vote, sorry, you're not an American, this is so every legal American vote, and only every legal American vote, shall be counted.

 

[wing2000]

I don't recall citing that specific case. There are all kinds of potential crimes related to an election, the goal is to make sure that every legal vote, and only legal votes, are counted. The full forensic audit is so in the future your vote and my vote, sorry, you're not an American, this is so every legal American vote, and only every legal American vote, shall be counted.

....already occurred in Maricopa County. And county officials (from both parties) already audited the vote (according to state law) and certified the election. Legal challenges were dismissed by the Arizona courts. All of these facts have been stated repeatedly.

Yet, here you are Valletta, months after the certification, and you continue to case doubt on our election, our election officials, the thousands of election workers and our courts.

 

[Valletta]

....already occurred in Maricopa County. And county officials (from both parties) already audited the vote (according to state law) and certified the election. Legal challenges were dismissed by the Arizona courts. All of these facts have been stated repeatedly.

Yet, here you are Valletta, months after the certification, and you continue to case doubt on our election, our election officials, the thousands of election workers and our courts.

This is the first full forensic audit in our nation's history. It will not change past certification. The hope is that it will be of great benefit to future elections. You need to realize that sometimes a cursory audit or investigation does not always uncover all of the facts. In this case auditors were urged to do a more thorough audit and count and they chose not to do so. Now the Arizona legislature has stepped in. The Arizona legislature has full rights under the law to conduct this full forensic audit. Why would people go to such effort to try and stop a more thorough audit?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The Republican-dominated Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on Monday denounced an ongoing audit of the 2020 election vote as a “sham” and a “con,” calling on the GOP-led state Senate to end the controversial recount that has been championed by former president Donald Trump.

In a calculated show of unity, they were joined by Maricopa’s other elected officials: the sheriff, a Democrat; and the Republican county recorder, who leads the elections office.

“Our state has become a laughingstock,” the county officials wrote. “Worse, this ‘audit’ is encouraging our citizens to distrust elections, which weakens our democratic republic.”

On the one hand, this erosion of confidence is mostly likely to affect the most conspiratorial minded on the right. As we saw in Georgia, this may produce Democratic victories in a purple-red state like Arizona. On the other hand, distrust of elections is what may produce insurrections, again perpetrated by the most conspiratorial minded.

Jointly, the county officials agreed that they would refuse to attend a meeting that had been called Tuesday by Fann to discuss what she had termed “serious issues” with the vote that Cyber Ninjas claims to have identified.

Supervisor Bill Gates (R) said at Monday’s meeting that no county official would attend Fann’s meeting.

“This board [is not] going to be part of a political theater broadcast on live stream by OAN,” he said.

Much of the county’s 13-page letter — and an accompanying 17-page technical memo — was devoted to disputing those claims [of shenanigans alleged by the ninjas and their handlers].

On Monday, Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) joined Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in signing a letter defending the audit to the Justice Department, which had previously questioned whether the process complies with federal law that requires the preservation of ballots for 22 months after an election.

Ahahahaha. I watched that. I had been under a rather false impression that board of supervisors were just getting their toes stepped on and didn’t like it. As if their turf was being taken over by another government agency and they were fighting that. In other words pettiness and such.

After watching that I have totally changed my opinion of what is going on. Looks to me like they are total never Trumpers and that is their motivation. Especially thier main spokesman. Total Lincoln project material and ALL THAT IT IMPLIES. If you catch my drift.

 

[Whyayeman]

I beg your pardon, Valletta. It was #56 posted by someone else. I thought you must have read it but evidently not.

Here it is:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...canned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf

 

[Tinker Grey]

I beg your pardon, Valletta. It was #56 posted by someone else. I thought you must have read it but evidently not.

Here it is:

Um...that link doesn't work for me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Um...that link doesn't work for me.

The quoting truncated it.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...canned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf

 

[Tinker Grey]

The quoting truncated it.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-...canned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf

Thanks. That worked. It would appear that quoting didn't just abbreviate it with '...' but actually inserted dots.