Posted on 05/19/2021 2:37:30 PM PDT by White Lives Matter
Original ballots? What did they count, Xerox copies of ballots?
“Original ballots? What did they count, Xerox copies of ballots?”
That s the implication. I think, but I do not know, each ballot has a unique number/barcode. Multiple ballots with the same unique number are obvious fraud.
End of June? Nothing to see here, move along.
, move along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s what Flimsey Grahamnesty and friends keep telling us.
This is obvious fraud, if correct. It is a way to create ballots without voters. Just harvest original ballots, to avoid the possibility of paper and watermark detection. Remove the identifying number, so there is no record of where or when the ballot originated or was sent; then mark the ballot.
The ballot is sent to adjudication, and a new ballot is created, with no traceability or accountability. You can substitute ballots marked for one candidate for those marked for someone else. The ballot with no number replaces the ballot which was originally filled out, which had the number recorded by the adjudication machine.
Essentially this allows ballots to be filled out in advance, without numbers, to be substituted for legitimate ballots with numbers.
My interpretation.
The auditors answered her question as to when the audit would be complete, they answered “we expect by the end of June”. So it’s not a hard date.
The problem within the AZ State Legislature is that each chamber has only a +1 majority and one of the AZ GOP Senators is a turncoat, Paull Boyer. He’s being recalled and signatures are due by mid-June. A recall may or may not force his hand when it comes time for the legislature to take action.
1. The Maricopa Sheriff is a lefty.
2. The AZ AG is a fence-sitter nodding to the Never-Trump clique.
3. The Governor is not a friend of the Trump movement.
The Senate’s leverage is limited.
The most important result coming out of AZ is not throwing the MCBOS in jail (although our emotions would love to see it) because the AZ Legislature is not going to vote to do that unless Arizonans get in their grill frequently and even then some of the legislators will pay lip service and cast blame somewhere else.
I view the most important result out of AZ to be the legislature’s report and new election reform laws. I wish it was more but I don’t think AZ will be the state that slams it down like to needs to be done. I just don’t think AZ has the enforcement muscle but I could be wrong and I hope I’m wrong.
When the other dominoes (states) begin to fall, one of the other states will forge a complaint to SCOTUS in a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, all the states will back that and join other groups to push it.
Quo Warranto is planned, an attack plan is already in existence with it as the objective. It’s not me saying it.
The AZ Senate is calling for an extension to see what other elected offices could be brought under the microscope. This could possibly bring them more leverage because like so many other ‘red states’, it’s a good bet that their ranks have been infiltrated by persons in office due to machine voting.
But it’s probably going to be another state or group of states like GA, PA, MI, WI, NH that follow AZ’s lead for a full forensic audit, then as momentum builds it becomes a Quo Warranto movement.
Try posting something constructive instead of continuous one line bashing of republicans.
I only bash Assistant Democrats.
It's looking like some of the irrefgulariries , especially the internet related ones, went through the Sheriffs office. It would be devastating if evidence comes out that the top law officer of Maricopa County was a player and /or enabler in the election steal in AZ.
They said from the beginning that it would be 6 weeks and knew ahead of time that they would be interrupted by the predetermined schedule of the place.
I believe adjudication is where a lot of the fraud happened. No accountability and a clean ballot is printed. Magically in 2020 adjudication rates for Trump ballets went from the traditional sub 1 percent to absurd double digit percentages??!
“Tweeted out a poll” An opinion poll about this = nada.
When handled per AZ law, a messed up ballot that can’t be fed into the counting machines, is given a serial number. In the presence of multiple observers, an election official is supposed to mark a clean ballot with the same votes as the spoiled one, and write the same serial number on the “duplicate” as is on the spoiled original. The original goes into one pile for storage, the duplicate goes for counting.
At the Senate hearing, the auditors described finding numerous “duplicate ballots” with the required serial numbers written on them. Reportedly many “spoiled ballots” had no numbers (or just a 2 digit number that didn’t fit the serial numbers’ multi-digit pattern). This thwarted the intent of the law, which was that originals could be matched to their replacements, allowing the accuracy of “duplication” to be checked.
They did not say, in the parts I heard, that there was a numerical shortage of spoiled ballots versus duplicate ballots. It would seem that auditors could easily isolate and total the raw number of total ballots in the “spoiled” stack and in the “duplicates” stack. Count the votes for each candidate on the spoiled originals and the same for the duplicates, then compare the two aggregate totals for discrepancies. I’d expect some very small variance, no matter how hard people and machines “try” to get it perfect. But more than a few off, and that signals a major flaw in the canvas.
Has anyone seen credible reports of the total number of spoiled originals versus duplicates? I’d be very interested in seeing those.
This is obvious fraud, if correct......
Exactly, and huge if true. The AZ Senate's liaison with the audit team, Mr. Bennett, went to great length to explain this to Karen Fann.
I haven’t seen any reports what you speak of. It’s all going to be revealed though when the audit is finished.
End of June? I thought it was supposed to be over by May 14. This is starting to remind me of the Durham investigation.
> “SCOTUS rejected its original jurisdiction when it refused to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania case.”
This would be a new case for original jurisdiction. It may be that quo warranto could only be brought AFTER inauguration.
The 9th Circuit held the proper venue for quo warranto was as you wrote, DC District Court, but that would seem for individual plaintiffs.
I believe States always have original jurisdiction versus the United States. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I believe you are correct, and the massive uptick of ballots sent to adjudication proves out your theory.
Essentially it is money laundering with ballots.
Waiting until the end of June = cruel and unusual punishment.
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.