Arizona Election Audit

[BowlBrother85]

I am.
I’d prefer 3 separate firms and then let’s compare results

The Arizona Republican state legislature simply should have hired a firm without ties to one of the campaigns, who hadn't already predetermined the outcome of the audit by describing the election results as having been "rigged". Is that unreasonable? No, it isn't. Could that have been done? Yes, very easily.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The left has absolutely no curiosity why it is "sensitive", what is it's utility to a foreign power if leaked, or why it was leaked. IF it was leaked.
They were just as incurious and unquestioning for four years and continuing today re: the Russia collusion hoax. And that was during Trump's term. But now - oh, now - we can believe it since another agency headed by an unelected bureaucrat answers to the same man who stated he campaigned for prez because Trump said neo-Nazis were very fine people. A bald-faced lie he repeats post-election.

Until Treasury shows it's hand, this is yet another BS hoax.

I don't think people like Bowl want to see the evidence. They never petition for it, never question it, and when it's found to be the most spectacular lie and abuse in federal law enforcement history, they try to germinate another field of lies with another rancid seed. It's a big deal to him because he's married to a nearly five year old hoax. He swallowed the "Russian Bounty on U.S. Soldiers!!" hoax, and the "Trump Calls Soldiers Suckers and Losers" hoax. These people are chirping apparatchiks who need programming and will swallow anything deposited into their mouth.

Don’t forget the “all Mexicans are rapists” lie

 

[Weezer]

A "whatabout" for BB. Remember when a whole investigation was launched into Russia collusion based off an unconfirmed dossier financed by Hillary and the Democrats and phone records showed that the very people investigating were anti-Trumpers?

Partisanship sucks.

This audit will go nowhere and accomplish nothing. Not sure why Dems are upset. Nothing is gonna happen. Biden will remain President.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Is that how it works though? My understanding is this is a legislative event. Its an audit requested by the (republican) state legislature and that is why the legislature selected auditor. I thought if the auditors find fraud, the AZ legislature will vote along party lines to endorse or not endorse the results. That will be the end of it. It will not overturn the election. It will not be appealable by the other side. That's just my limited understanding. My understanding is they need that legislative authority to conduct the audit so there is no subsequent rebuttal investigation.

@Orangeslice13 I think that addresses your post too.

I would add that Cyber Ninjas Inc. is not required to be transparent with how they reached their findings. They don't have to share what their methodology was with other firms.

 

[BreatheUT]

Nice find, and I will admit when I was wrong, but I wasn't lying... that suggests an intent to deceive. I was watching MSNBC this morning and they claimed that Fox News had not reported on this guy as of yet.[/QUOTE]

Well this explains it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Idk who this 'tweeter' is but he/she nailed it. hahaha

Trump looks pathetic in that video. The audience indulges him with polite applause, but look at the expressions on their faces... Trump isn't getting genuine support from those people. He is getting their awkward sympathy. They feel embarrassed for him.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It matters not a whit; it's not as though they can lock it up and yell "FRAUD" the way Democrats apply "RACIST" to rebut arguments they can't. Any findings of fraud will be publicly, loudly peer-reviewed.

If I were a party in such a dispute, I'd be licking my chops to have the opponent hand-pick his audit team, claim fraud, then my team publicly dismantle it. Unless there's actual fraud, in which case it is what it is.

There's no downside here.

This is so stupid. If Arizona's Republican-controlled state legislature genuinely cared about the integrity of the democratic system of elections in the United States as they claim, then they would not have hired Doug Logan's firm to conduct the audit. You are a tool, who would defend anything done by a Republican.

 

[Weezer]

You are a tool, who would defend anything done by a Republican.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Mmmkay... I think you accused me of this the other day... and I pointed to how I was critical of Obama for the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal over the targeting of conservative members of the media. You never responded to that post, however. You definitely do some cherry-picking. I've frequently been critical of Obama, the Clintons and Biden here.

 

[Weezer]

Mmmkay... I think you accused me of this the other day... and I pointed to how I was critical of Obama for the IRS/Lois Lerner scandal over the targeting of conservative members of the media. You never responded to that post, however. You definitely do some cherry-picking. I've frequently been critical of Obama, the Clintons and Biden here.

Dude, you called out like one thing while defending so many others. And that one thing was from years ago. Read your own posts sometime. You are what you claim to hate.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I do remember the Lois Lerner and IRS scandal under Barack Obama and that was dead wrong of him and his administration. It was a flagrant abuse of power. I said so at the time... that was a real low point for his presidency. It shouldn't have happened.

@Weezer

This was the post I was talking about from last Thursday. It's post #627 of this very thread, and it was a reply to one of your "what-about-isms". You never acknowledged it. I was critical of Obama quite a bit during his 2nd term.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Dude, you called out like one thing while defending so many others. And that one thing was from years ago. Read your own posts sometime. You are what you claim to hate.

I called it out, because it was something YOU had mentioned. LOL!

 

[Weezer]

@Weezer

This was the post I was talking about from last Thursday. It's post #627 of this very thread, and it was a reply to one of your "what-about-isms". You never acknowledged it. I was critical of Obama quite a bit during his 2nd term.

So you would have supported impeachment?

 

[BowlBrother85]

So you would have supported impeachment?

You are moving the goal post. I was critical of someone for unconditionally defending Republicans over every issue... and you did the pot and kettle thing. In turn, I pointed to one item on which I have been critical of a Democratic Party President... but there are many other examples of criticism I could cite. I have never spent much time here defending Hillary Clinton... but I have been critical of her a lot.

 

[Weezer]

You are moving the goal post. I was critical of someone for unconditionally defending Republicans over every issue... and you did the pot and kettle thing. In turn, I pointed to one item on which I have been critical of a Democratic Party President... but there are many other examples of criticism I could cite. I have never spent much time here defending Hillary Clinton... but I have been critical of her a lot.

Would you have supported impeachment? You said it was an abuse of power.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Would you have supported impeachment? You said it was an abuse of power.

No, because the subsequent FBI investigation concluded that there was no evidence uncovered which warranted federal criminal charges and they had found no evidence of "enemy hunting". Finally, this practice by the IRS did not begin under Obama... it began in 2004, when the IRS started using both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

 

[Weezer]

No, because the subsequent FBI investigation concluded that there was no evidence uncovered which warranted federal criminal charges and they had found no evidence of "enemy hunting". Finally, this practice by the IRS did not begin under Obama... it began in 2004, when the IRS started using both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

So you're defending what you yourself called an abuse of power?

 

[BowlBrother85]

So you're defending what you yourself called an abuse of power?

I'm not defending anything. It was an abuse of power. I just don't think it rose to the level of being an impeachable offense... which is basically the way Sen. Lamar Alexander described Trump's withholding aid to the Ukraine for the purpose of encouraging the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

 

[Weezer]

I'm not defending anything. It was an abuse of power. I just don't think it rose to the level of being an impeachable offense... which is basically the way Sen. Lamar Alexander described Trump's withholding aid to the Ukraine for the purpose of encouraging the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

Yet haven't you said you consider what Trump did as impeachable?

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Nice find, and I will admit when I was wrong, but I wasn't lying... that suggests an intent to deceive. I was watching MSNBC this morning and they claimed that Fox News had not reported on this guy as of yet.

So msnbc didn’t do their homework, reported it as fact and you trusting them reported it here. Best advice... stop trusting msm.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Trump looks pathetic in that video. The audience indulges him with polite applause, but look at the expressions on their faces... Trump isn't getting genuine support from those people. He is getting their awkward sympathy. They feel embarrassed for him.

Right. The only face I could see was the secret service woman in the front. The momentary side glance at the crowd shows they were all facing him and paying attention when trump was speaking.
I’m glad you are an empath and can tell me exactly what people are feeling. Without your in-depth analysis I would have thought the clapping and yelling ya were being forced at gunpoint to be there in the first place.
This is exactly why I don’t trust your perceptions BB.

 

[Orangeslice13]

and then 3 more....

and then 3 more, more..
and then maybe 4, or 5 more? depends on what they think in Mar-a-Lago

Nobody cares about mar-a-lago but you and the partisans. People concerned about truth don’t mind every state being audited. And don’t tell me you’re suddenly concerned about cost. Nobody believes that either

 

[Orangeslice13]

Is that how it works though? My understanding is this is a legislative event. Its an audit requested by the (republican) state legislature and that is why the legislature selected auditor. I thought if the auditors find fraud, the AZ legislature will vote along party lines to endorse or not endorse the results. That will be the end of it. It will not overturn the election. It will not be appealable by the other side. That's just my limited understanding. My understanding is they need that legislative authority to conduct the audit so there is no subsequent rebuttal investigation.

@Orangeslice13 I think that addresses your post too.

If there’s legitimate fraud then it should lead to legitimate reforms. If no fraud is found then it advances a belief that we’re not yet a banana republic which in my mind is good for the country as a whole.
I see no situation where an audit of an election after the fact is bad. (Any and all elections should be subject to them)

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nobody cares about mar-a-lago but you and the partisans. People concerned about truth don’t mind every state being audited. And don’t tell me you’re suddenly concerned about cost. Nobody believes that either

True... and if the Republicans from the Arizona state legislature cared about truth, they wouldn't have hired Doug Logan's firm to conduct their audit.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Sure.
I’m a partisan hack whose opinion changes based on the party involved

Agreed.