BOMBSHELL: Maricopa County Didn't Have Password to Look Into Admin Functions of Voting Machines

OAN ^ | May 6, 2021 | Christina Bobb

[nesnah]

The short version is the password must not be vendor supplied and must only be known by authorized users. It sounds like they failed on both of those requirements.

---

I do believe someone in AZ gov’t (likely more than one) have this password and used it extensively. This will be discovered and the SWHTF.

[MayflowerMadam]

Exactly. At no time during the election did Arizona PTB have control over the election. They were tools and assets for whomever was running the show.

[zeugma]

The point of a non-admin account is to make sure that some random user doesn't accidentally erase all the votes, or a million other potentially harmful things. Non-admin accounts make sense.

Indeed. And the way to determine if Dominion actually DID perform administrative functions is to determine if you can actually go through all of the processes that are needed during the course of the election without having administrative access. If you can't do it, then someone else did.

[cherry]

"why would a beautiful young woman do that to her body?"

unbelievable isn't it....disgusting as well....

[Dr. Franklin]

Indeed. And the way to determine if Dominion actually DID perform administrative functions is to determine if you can actually go through all of the processes that are needed during the course of the election without having administrative access. If you can't do it, then someone else did.

The legislature can subpoena people from the county, or Dominion to get to the bottom of who did what and when. With the forensic audits of the machines, I would expect people to start taking the Fifth. That makes for great theater, and contradicts the lie of the most secure election in history.

[Dr. Franklin]

Indeed. And the way to determine if Dominion actually DID perform administrative functions is to determine if you can actually go through all of the processes that are needed during the course of the election without having administrative access. If you can't do it, then someone else did.

So, this was moved to "bloggers"...

[StormEye]

"why would a beautiful young woman do that to her body?"

Extremely bad judgment and immaturity.
In addition, being young and beautiful
doesn't make one sane.
Only my opinion of course.

[ransomnote]

[Dr. Franklin]

Well it’s just a photo, but Bill Gates is no angel.

[Cen-Tejas]

and absent a showing of sufficient fraud to change the results,
**************************************************************

you see this is the part that pisses me off! Some 50 odd courts rejected evidentiary hearings on “standing”. So, your statement above is correct as far as it goes. But, it could not go any further when 50 courts refused to even listen to the evidence. This action by the Robert’s court will forever be a blight on the John Roberts court and replace Dred Scott as the worst action ever not taken by a Supreme Court.

[Dr. Franklin]

you see this is the part that pisses me off! Some 50 odd courts rejected evidentiary hearings on “standing”. So, your statement above is correct as far as it goes. But, it could not go any further when 50 courts refused to even listen to the evidence. This action by the Robert’s court will forever be a blight on the John Roberts court and replace Dred Scott as the worst action ever not taken by a Supreme Court.

Right, they didn't care that the elections weren't conducted according to statutory law. The courts just decided if the legislature didn't have problem with how the elections were conducted, they weren't going to decide the cases. Now, those laws were enacted for a purpose, i.e., not to count illegal ballots so corrupt pols could steal elections. So, they ignored the illegalities that enabled fraud. Trump's legal team was careful not to raise the issue of fraud without ALL of the evidence, which was being hidden. Now the other shoe drops, and Trump or others can litigate the fraud.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but we never got dram of prevention. Now we need a ton of cure. I can tell you that any decision on a writ of quo warranto by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will be appealed. If the initial decision is in favor of Trump, I don't know how SCOTUS could not hear the case before the D. C. Court of Appeals. This is all to the eternal shame of John Roberts. Had the court taken that PA case before the election, other courts would have acted differently. Roberts let all hell break lose. May he rot in hell when his time comes.

[palmer]

...if you can actually go through all of the processes that are needed during the course of the election without having administrative access...

True, and worth finding out.

[Dr. Franklin]

...if you can actually go through all of the processes that are needed during the course of the election without having administrative access...

In which case, the local government that should be running the election clearly doesn't know what the contractor is doing from the admin account. That's just not acceptable.

[ptsal]

READ POST 2

[Cen-Tejas]

...it’s interesting to me that Roberts et all could not hide behind standing if a “demandant” filed a “writ of quo warranto” in a court with jurisdiction.

For other readers/freepers benefit, on a writ of quo warranto, five process facts stand out and are unique: # 1 such writs are called prerogative because they go to the head of the line on a court of jurisdictions docket...

And, # 2, and most important given recent court rulings, there is no such thing as “standing” as ANYONE may appear in the capacity of “demandant” even without a stake in the outcome...

#3 is that the “demandant” represents the sovereign meaning “the people”...

#4 is that the “burden of proof” is on the “respondent” (Biden) not the demandant...

#5 is that “Enforcement” is by the people as militia which could be the sheriff....

Obviously such a successful “writ of quo warranto” would be appealed to the Supreme Court. So, to answer the interesting question you raise as to whether or not the Supreme Court would hear the case, I believe they would because if they didn’t their legitimacy would be on the line and such a shirking of their duty would likely lead to a Civil War.

As some historical person once said (cant find his name), “at the end of the day, the real power in America is with the PEOPLE not the Supreme Court”.

[Dr. Franklin]

...it’s interesting to me that Roberts et all could not hide behind standing if a “demandant” filed a “writ of quo warranto” in a court with jurisdiction.

Right. Standing and laches are equitable defenses, not legal defenses, for those who understand the difference. So, because there always was a right to file the petition for a writ of quo warranto those opinions make little sense. The defendants never had an expectation to repose of the action.

For other readers/freepers benefit, on a writ of quo warranto, five process facts stand out and are unique: # 1 such writs are called prerogative because they go to the head of the line on a court of jurisdictions docket...

The court may consider a petition for a prerogative writ expeditiously, but I think its better to consider the prerogative writs as the discretionary prerogatives of the monarch which were delegated to the royal judges. In modern practice the writs of mandamus and prohibition tend to be the most common, and their issuance is discretionary.

And, # 2, and most important given recent court rulings, there is no such thing as “standing” as ANYONE may appear in the capacity of “demandant” even without a stake in the outcome...

Certainly, anyone can file for the writ. However, I would expect that the person filing for the writ will need to show to the court that he/she has been affected in some way by election. There is also a requirement that the AG or U.S. Attorney must first be requested to take action before filing for the writ. If it can be demonstrated in the petition that the AG and US Attorney themselves are illegitimate, that requirement should be waived by the court.

#3 is that the “demandant” represents the sovereign meaning “the people”...
#4 is that the “burden of proof” is on the “respondent” (Biden) not the demandant...
#5 is that “Enforcement” is by the people as militia which could be the sheriff....

What's interesting about a quo warranto action is that the person claiming to hold the office must prove it. However, when the AG or U.S Attorney declines to bring the action, the petitioner must convince the judge first, before the writ will issue.

Obviously such a successful “writ of quo warranto” would be appealed to the Supreme Court. So, to answer the interesting question you raise as to whether or not the Supreme Court would hear the case, I believe they would because if they didn’t their legitimacy would be on the line and such a shirking of their duty would likely lead to a Civil War.

If the writ issues successfully, Dems face jail time, and other punishments from the populace if the DOJ refuses to prosecute. It would be so historic that SCOTUS would need to hear the case before the D.C. Court of Appeals.

As some historical person once said (cant find his name), “at the end of the day, the real power in America is with the PEOPLE not the Supreme Court”.

Yes, there is a reason why the Dems want to grab guns now. They fear the people and the militia.

[Dr. Franklin]

READ POST 2

Neither my opinion, nor your opinion matters. We might suggest that they create a separate category for news about the stolen election, which at present isn't considered news here...

[Cen-Tejas]

Yes, there is a reason why the Dems want to grab guns now. They fear the people and the militia.

***********************************************************

So, ARGUABLY, the 2nd Amendment is the REAL FIRST AMENDMENT as it, hopefully, INSURES all the others.

[bitt]

p

[Dr. Franklin]

Exactly. Hopefully it does, but people need to understand what the militia is, how the country was founded, and that the Second Amendment wasn’t ratified so people could go deer hunting. (Not that there is anything wrong with venison, of course!) Sovereignty must remain with the people, not the courts.