Posted on 07/19/2021 7:59:07 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
(CNN) - Arizona's Senate held a Thursday briefing on the ongoing Republican-initiated "audit" of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, where Joe Biden outperformed Donald Trump by enough of a margin to win the state.
The review is being conducted by Cyber Ninjas, a cybersecurity firm that has no experience in election auditing. And the company's chief executive officer, Doug Logan, made some Thursday claims that were immediately called into question by the county and independent experts.
Logan said that door-to-door questioning of Maricopa County voters is the "one way" the auditors could determine whether what they are seeing in the elections data are "real problems" or "clerical errors of some sort." "For example, we have 74,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent," he said.
~snip~
Facts First: There is no evidence of either fraud or any significant error with these ballots, and certainly not "magically appearing ballots." Both Maricopa County and outside experts say there is a simple explanation for the gap Logan claimed had not been explained: the existence of in-person early voting. Contrary to Logan's claims, the ballot lists he was talking about include not only mail-in ballots but also ballots cast early in person.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
But wait... Where is the “CNN is ATT” poster dude? Is he sleeping in today?
LMAO!!
That’s hilarious!
It is just easier talking about a convoluted explanation than a real answer for any of the many other felonies that were raised by the audit.
So Cyber Ninja does not have experience. So what? Nobody has experience in forensic auditing of ballots. This is the first time it has been tried. Hence, the great care to do it properly and in order.
After this, Cyber Ninja will be experienced and will be the standard of the industry.
For most of United States history it had a skeptical and at time cynical press. Now, like CNN, we have an idoological press, which is no press at all.
A CNN Fact Check, you say???
(Insert southern Grandmother voice) “Bless their little hearts, they do try so hard, don’t they?”
LOL! CNN? Does CNN have any credibility at all, on anything?
Right. Why would the requested-ballots list stop getting updated?
But, this was done by “an an election analyst at ABC15”, so he must know the score.
If you think it is baselessly, you were not paying any attention during the Senate hearing! Wait until all the facts are out.
Maricopa County could help move the audit process along by simply answering the auditor’s questions, instead of referring the auditors to their lawyers. I watched the entire hearing, and for most discrepancies brought forth, the speaker said they asked the board why there might be a discrepancy, and were referred to the lawyers. Apparently, the board will answer the questions for CNN, who has no experience in election auditing.
Chicken Noodle News Fact Check, Inc.
So, according to this refutation, there is an updated list somewhere, right?
“Baselessly”=inconveniently for Dhimmicraps.
“So what? Nobody has experience in forensic auditing of ballots.”
I had the same thought. They have had cameras on this entire process, which makes it more open than the official process. If they had so much confidence in the final tally, they would be happy to see themselves vindicated. But instead, they are scared.
This isn’t rocket-science. Elections have been conducted for centuries, and there are policies and procedures that are to be followed, not the least of which is securing and accounting for official ballots.
There is a total number of ballots produced. They are distributed - some to satisfy absentee requests, some to satisfy mail-in requests, some to fill the needs of same-day registration and early voting. But every one of those ballots should be accounted for. They should know immediately how many were mailed out, and what those ballot numbers were. By checking the ballot numbers on the mailers returned, they should immediately be able to tell you how many were returned, and which ones. It follows that they can also tell you which ones were NOT returned. The same goes for those distributed to the early voting sites. It should be a simple matter to determine which of the ballots counted were products of the early-voting process.
It shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll do so anyway: to ensure there are enough ballots to conduct the election, there should be more ballots on-hand than will actually be required or used. That’s to ensure you don’t run out. Those too should be accounted for.
It takes a willing suspension of common sense to believe they don’t have these processes in place, and can’t immediately cite the numbers, chapter and verse. The only ballots that should not be accounted for at the end of an election are those mailed out to fulfill absentee and other vote-by-mail requests, and that are not returned. The rest should be one of: unused/undistributed; spoiled; voted. Of the voted, it should be trivial to categorize as mail-in, in-person early, in-person at precinct, and even provisional.
There are people making that claim, specifically ballots being sent back that weren't initially dispersed.
The best thing to do to clear this all up is to go right to the source. Check the AZ Senate hearing transcript from several days ago to find out what they are claiming.
I haven't had time to do that yet, but I will get to it.
I stopped reading upon encountering the letters “CNN”.
Dear BF,
You are a genius! Please forward your explanation to CNN.
To be honest, I wish those gentlemen from the hearing would have explained something like you just did.
I knew that 74K ballots with a problem existed, but I couldn’t connect it, specifically, to the problem.
How dumb am I?
This is still going on? I thought the report was to be posted ages ago.
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.