Posted on 04/01/2023 7:08:08 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
You think the Republican Maricopa County Recorder is flat out lying when he says they didn't use the software?
Seems it would be pretty easy to disprove.
Good point. Forging requires little effort—walk in, write the voter’s signature and go. Getting an ID and photo, now that takes effort. And why shouldn’t it? Voting is important and there should be effort in exercise …like exercising your right (and patriotic duty) to vote.
That builds a lotta confidence seeing ronbeck printing in charge of validating ballot signatures
Xxxxxxxx
They weren’t. They didn’t use Runbeck’s software in 2022.
^^^^^^^^^^
Nice try
Excerpt from the piece:
“A July 2022 contract extension between Maricopa County and Runbeck explains how the signature verification program scores signature matches.”
There is more in the piece that show runbeck was up to their gills in the fraudulent 2022 election too
The county recorder, who runs the elections, says they didn't use the software in 2022.
Do you think he's lying and that all of the election workers who would have encountered the software are staying quiet as part of the conspiracy?
Do you think he’s lying and that all of the election workers who would have encountered the software are staying quiet as part of the conspiracy?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
yes
absolutley
You quoted what I wrote but seem not to have read it. I didn’t write that Richter was “flat out lying” — I said
that the author of the article was not telling the whole truth.
What matters is whether Maracopa County verified signatures in a manner that complied with AZ law and the county’s own policies. The measures Richter talks about might accomplish that, but they sound very much ad hoc and untested. Who verified that the procedure he described was accurate? How? Degree of accuracy? Any evidence that casts it in doubt?
I expect the judge to refuse to allow Lake’s experts to examine the signatures, or depose all the checkers, etc. It would be in the best interest of all AZ voters for the judge to appoint a Special Master, who would oversee a examination of a large sample (say 1000) of the “accepted” signatures versus the signature on file. That could yield a percentage of how many were actually bad. If that percentage times the overall quantity that required validation exceeds 17,500 ish, then Lake has shown that the methodology used by the county apparently failed. If not it makes sense to end the case.
Outrageous and unacceptable!
The article's about the Runbeck software, not the "whole truth".
Who verified that the procedure he described was accurate? How? Degree of accuracy? Any evidence that casts it in doubt?
The county recorder is going to produce all the procedures they followed and the results of the audits they performed.
It's up to Kari to show that they didn't follow procedures.
She can't just ask the court for a fishing epedition - she needs to present evidence that the processes weren't followed.
No court will let anyone access to all the voter information absent strong evidence of a problem.
> You think the Republican Maricopa County Recorder is flat out lying when he says they didn’t use the software?
I think this is a snark. At some point Maricopa admitted sending the ballot envelopes offsite for signature verification through the vendor’s equipment. The procedure followed appears to be in contravention of legal requirements for handling ballots. There’s no provable chain of custody for those ballots. Runbeck also admitted adding ballots for employees.
There are so many questionable aspects about the 2020 and 2022 Arizona elections related to mail in ballots; ranging from the tendency to bypass procedural constraints and the dubious integrity of the procedure even when followed. I do not have any confidence in the integrity of the elections, past or future. By treating challengers as laughable dunces and finding procedural ways to avoid discovery and accountability, public officials have shown tremendous arrogance and contempt for the public.
The public elects the officials who run the elections and determine the processes for voting and counting ballots.
If Kari can show those processes weren't followed she may have a case, but she can't just demand access to voter data, etc. unless that's part of the process.
The system would fall apart if every losing candidate could second guess the elected official's processes and judgment without evidence of wrongdoing.
If Kari doesn't like the election processes she should run for a position where she can change them - if the public wants to give her that power.
> The public elects the officials who run the elections and determine the processes for voting and counting ballots.
The process must follow the law, it must be explicitly shown to have followed the law, and the official is responsible for demonstrating this in a clear and explicable fashion.
If the election is corrupted at some point it can no longer be said the public elects the officials...comments mocking challengers stink of deflection from the details of the challenge, because they are intended to rebut the challenge by ad hominem instead of by presentation of evidence. Now we must question the probity of the public official who resorts to ad hominem, and call their acts into question. Otherwise we might remain unaware of misfeasance and risk disenfranchisement. Thus his comments deprecating Kari Lake offend our confidence in election veracity, inviting deep scrutiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.