[quote=“Kelby, post:5436, topic:237765, full:true”]
It’s possible. People have been telling him that he is for years.
As you posted before. As State Senator Sonny Borrelli said in the interview the CN’s report was turned over to the AG. And it has been obvious from the get go that everything that the CN’s found has a explanation. So my prediction is that the AG will get the clarification from the election board and conclude that the number of questionable ballots would not be a number that would change the outcome of the election.
But will he say this publicly, or will he announce with fanfare (or leak or whatever) the dozen illegal voting cases he finds and leave the disposition of the other 23,332 up for speculation and mis-reporting.
My prediction is that is what will happen.
Based on his history in making arguments supporting the audit I believe you are correct. And the fact that Trump nominated his wife for a federal court bench seat. However Katie Hobbs has been pretty vocal about the audit and she has so far got quite a bit of state and national press coverage.
One of the kickers that I can see is if the AG cancels out the Special Master and takes control of equipment and logs (i.e. the routers). This might cause a very expensive deal which might not sit well with some taxpayers. Especially if no problems are found.
Scary stuff right here
1 Like
The assumption here is much more interesting than that. It’s that he succeeded.
1 Like
While you are at it, why not consider giving us some more predictions about the many other concerns listed in the report?
I see no recent polling data to suggest most Arizona taxpayers care one way or the other about audit costs, especially with the surge going on their southern border courtesy of Biden.
I have done that a few times. Do you have particular elements you would like me to address?
I am happy to answer as I don’t think we have properly discussed to audit report here.
For starters please refer to the Fann letter again. Specifically to point 5 of that included “37,000 identical queries several days after the court ordered Maricopa County to produce its election materials to the (State) Senate”. In addition, among others things it also cited failure to supply documentation sufficient to reconcile duplicated ballots to corresponding original ballots.
Can you link me to that letter please.
My first comment is that “letters from Faan” do not carry the weight of the audit report. I’m interested in her comments about the report, but we can not allow the political body to create additional elements into the audit report.
The audit was forensic and controlled. A letter from a politician can say anything and therefore carries less credibility
I will comment on it all the same.
Oops
Ok, I located the letter. There is not much meat on the bones to comment on. It sounds to me like the file that logs user authentications to one of the elections computer is filled with failed logins. This could be in purpose or could be from an errant setup… I’ve seen many times a mis-configured, stale, or partially configured service try to connect repeatedly and indefinitely when a connection fails.
This is how a lot of networked software is designed. If a connection fails keep keep keep on trying.
It could be nefarious, but it really couldn’t cover up fraud, just cover login history of this computer. Without finding underlying election fraud I don’t think we can get to excited by elevating this to evidence of vote fraud.
So find fraud, detail the mechanism by which the computer in question was involved in the fraud, detail how a login record would reveal the guilty parties and then this takes on suspicion.
Until then it is a vague accusation. Made by a the same ppl who are on strike 15 of drawing faulty and misleading conclusions from the records as far as I’m concerned.
As far as the other points I agree that Maricopa did not cooperate. They are not obligated to and evaluated that some of the audit’s requests where invalid or in bad faith. Given the behavior of the participants I tend to agree with their assessment.
Defying court orders is beyond the pale plain and simple.
Motive could very well be a cover up of illegal activity.
And the criminal investigation is underway…
We have been over this. There are no court orders. This is a legislative subpoena and not voted on by full senate to boot.
It has not been evaluated in a judicial proceeding and the target of the subpoena has asserted deficiencies in parts of the subpoena.
This is hardly beyond the pale and is now a regular occurrence in our civics. We have multiple US congressional subpoenas being ignored or contested at this very moment.
Edit to add that there are actual court orders for audit records to be made public, and cyber ninjas is not complying. Are you willing to extend your reasoning and assign nefarious motives to the auditors as well?
2 Likes
The left’s linear thinking and their ability to latch on to only a single idea at one time, never ceases to amaze me.
1 Like
So far my original predictions have trended true although the numbers are higher.
https://community.hannity.com/t/2020-election-fraud-thread-part-2/237765/3344?u=snowfinch
The audit so far has focused on process artifacts not yet shown to be fraud. And “computery” things that are easy to find because software is pretty weakly designed and messy.
Stil have not connected these findings to fraud. But always another day and another chapter in this saga
We’ll see if my latest prediction bears resemblance to the outcome of the AGs completion of the audit. Or as you like to gloss it up as “a criminal investigation” even though the initiating evidence is a near possibility of a crime and no actual crime yet identified.
To your point lawyers retained by everyone including for town mayor, auditors, voting machine vendors and even Congress all play the shell game well.
Quality non-answer. Condescending, evasive, and typical. 
2 Likes
I’ll add some color and say that disputes that play out in court lead to a firmer grasp of the truth.
The courts are not perfect, but they are built with rules and traditions and motivations that counter outright dishonesty.
This is why these “legislative” subpoenas and investigations are problematic. These institutions are founded on dishonesty as gamesmanship and completely untethered from fairness.
Ultimately this whole issue needs to get somewhere in a judicial process. Where dishonesty has consequence and a referee enforces some semblance of fairness.
