Republican Review of Arizona Vote Fails to Show Stolen Election

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, here ya go, and I will cut to the chase:

"the draft report from the company Cyber Ninjas found just the opposite: It tallied 99 additional votes for President Biden and 261 fewer votes for Mr. Trump"



Fox News was right all along!
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I don't understand how you can be posting this at 2:20 AM when the report wasn't even due out yet until this afternoon. Another Fox news premature call? I'm going to have to look at this more closely. Not that it's really going to make any difference either way. It's way too late for that.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I don't understand how you can be posting this at 2:20 AM when the report wasn't even due out yet until this afternoon. Another Fox news premature call? I'm going to have to look at this more closely. Not that it's really going to make any difference either way. It's way too late for that.

You can watch it live here:

 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I think the number of votes for each candidate as posted in the OP somewhat misrepresents what the audit was all about (typical of mainstream media and the left). The task of the audit was not to determine the final outcome of the election in Maricopa country, but rather to investigate and determine if there were votes questionable as either fraudulent or illegitimate or even just in error that should not have been certified. Like the thousands more mail in ballots received that were not requested and sent out, as just one instance of questionable votes. What the audit found as a net result was some 50 thousand plus votes in question as to their legitimacy for any of the various reasons (an amount which is more than five times the Presidential winner's margin, BTW) and they presented those results of the audit to the legislature and left it up to them to do whatever they deemed appropriate to do with it.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I think the number of votes for each candidate as posted in the OP somewhat misrepresents what the audit was all about (typical of mainstream media and the left). The task of the audit was not to determine the final outcome of the election in Maricopa country, but rather to investigate and determine if there were votes questionable as either fraudulent or illegitimate or even just in error that should not have been certified. Like the thousands more mail in ballots received that were not requested and sent out, as just one instance of questionable votes. What the audit found as a net result was some 50 thousand plus votes in question as to their legitimacy for any of the various reasons (an amount which is more than five times the Presidential winner's margin, BTW) and they presented those results of the audit to the legislature and left it up to them to do whatever they deemed appropriate to do with it.

This is not correct. How did you get this from any article on the recount?

There were a large number of votes that were not simple, but they were not fraudulent or even questionable as to validity. They flagged things like people who moved:
"The review also checked the names of voters against a commercial database, finding 23,344 reported moving before ballots went out in October. While the review suggests something improper, election officials note that voters like college students, those who own vacation homes or military members can move to temporary locations while still legally voting at the address where they are registered.

"A competent reviewer of an election would not make a claim like that," said Trey Grayson, a former Republican secretary of state in Kentucky."

Also, CyberNinjas simply did not understand the vote tallying process;
"Logan laid out a series of claims stemming from his misunderstanding of the election data he was analyzing, including that 74,000 mail ballots were recorded as received but not sent. Trump repeatedly amplified the claims. Logan had compared two databases that track different things."

In other words, there was nothing improper in the Arizona results, which concluded, properly, that Trump lost.

If you can find 50,000 truly improper votes, please show me the evidence.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Trump's response on Saturday (9/25/21):
"It is clear, in Arizona that they must decertify the election, you heard the numbers," Trump said. "It's a disgrace. We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday on a level you wouldn't believe."

So there are only two interpretations of that comment. Either he is deluded, or lying. Take your pick.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
....

If you can find 50,000 truly improper votes, please show me the evidence.
As usual, you are very clever in your use of language. The audit delivered the evidence. It's up to the legislature to determine if the evidence presented proves votes were "truly improper" and which votes fit that definition. So, no, I can't do that, as it has not yet been determined. So as to how many, no I can't do that either, for the same reason. The number mentioned in my post is a number reported by a news organization, but I don't know which types of questionable votes were included by them in the total. I've heard counts of up to 250,000 plus reported. Counts are all over the map, depending on the types of questionable votes included and how totalled, and all such numbers, including the numbers mentioned in your OP, have about the same validity, and about the same disconnect from context.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Trump's response .... Either he is deluded, or lying. Take your pick.
None of the above. Just his usual political hyperbole. Trump supporters know to take such comments with a grain of salt. Unlike Biden, who lies frequently and profusely with such great sincerity because he's been a pathological lier for such a long time he can't tell the difference between truth and fiction anymore.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit - Volume III: Result Details

(see page 5)

Admittedly, the 50K number was probably some reporter that just summed all the given numbers without understanding applicability to count and/or classification overlap. Yet, there's certainly enough dubious votes to give the Arizona legislature some serious fodder for questioning the legitimacy of their election results.

I think that you can read the report and see that it is pretty useless (p.8):

1632934352579.png


They might as well have said "we don't know what any of this means. If anything".
 

roscoe

Well-known member
As usual, you are very clever in your use of language. The audit delivered the evidence. It's up to the legislature to determine if the evidence presented proves votes were "truly improper" and which votes fit that definition. So, no, I can't do that, as it has not yet been determined. So as to how many, no I can't do that either, for the same reason. The number mentioned in my post is a number reported by a news organization, but I don't know which types of questionable votes were included by them in the total. I've heard counts of up to 250,000 plus reported. Counts are all over the map, depending on the types of questionable votes included and how totalled, and all such numbers, including the numbers mentioned in your OP, have about the same validity, and about the same disconnect from context.
My language was simply precise.

You will notice that the Republican-majority Arizona legislature has decided to leave this dead fish to rot in the sun. They were embarrassed to be associated with this effort in the first place, and the results only made things worse.

There was not a single piece of information from the audit that the Arizona Republicans have tried to use. That should tell you something. Only Trump has tried to spin this. But then, being a con-man is his game.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
The more parsimonious explanation is that they know the election results were clean.

....
No, it's that nobody takes pleasure in cleaning up a dirty mess, and will usually look for whatever flimsy reasons to avoid doing it.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No, it's that nobody takes pleasure in cleaning up a dirty mess, and will usually look for whatever flimsy reasons to avoid doing it.
Naah. If the Republicans could gain advantage here, they would (as would the Democrats). All it takes is finger-pointing.

But there is nothing there. No toehold of evidence on which to build a narrative. It was a big build-up, with a multimillion dollar price tag. Then zip. Zero. Nothing.

No conspiracy. No fraud. No piles of fraudulent ballots. No 'dirty mess' at all. Just another normal American election.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member

roscoe

Well-known member
Apparently the Attorney General of Arizona disagrees with your evaluation:

We shall see. The question is what he does with that information. My money is on this being political theater. As this has been all along.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Well, whether it's fact of fiction, posturing or politics, the outcomes of such have a real world result on the American people. Best pay attention to what they're doing to you. You will be either helped or harmed.

(sorry, couldn't come up with any alliterative antonym for "theater")
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, whether it's fact of fiction, posturing or politics, the outcomes of such have a real world result on the American people. Best pay attention to what they're doing to you. You will be either helped or harmed.

(sorry, couldn't come up with any alliterative antonym for "theater")
Well, if he actually puts something in front of a grand jury, it will mean something. Making a weak argument in front of a judge or jury is a good way to be publicly humiliated, and I am sure he is anxious to avoid that.

But yes, this attempt to challenge the principals of participatory democracy is definitely concerning.

It has opened the door to challenges to any election either side dislikes the result of. You think Democrats won't do this now? It has created a mess, and it was all untrue. It was just a political strategy to try to avoid the fairly earned loss. But now, who knows how often we will see this tactic?

Republicans with long- term vision (or integrity) would reject this.
 
Last edited:
Top