Fact check: Arizona audit chief baselessly raises suspicion about 74,000 ballots

CNN ^ | July 19,2021

[lepton]

Yes. rlmorel and I have been having a running conversation on this issue. We’re not precisely on the same page here, but I think we’re pretty close.

[rlmorel]

I think that was the quote in the article. I started wondering why they would have that time range, and why they were important for get-out-the vote campaigns, but just decided it wasn’t really important in this case.

Forms that are used by some election egg head gurus for some reason.

[rlmorel]

"...Any ballot tracking system should definitively show where ballots went, and where they came from, and not rely upon inference..."

I wholly agree. That is really at the core of the problem, is it not?

[fireman15]

The baseless concept of gravity is being blamed for sagging boobies, butts, chins and Brian Stelter over at CNN when everyone knows the real problem is donuts.

[Chewbarkah]

EV = “Early Vote”?

[rlmorel]

Good gosh. I have to stop...:)

I have all these things bouncing around in my head...EV32/EV33 are correct, somehow I got DV32 and DV33 out of that which to my brain meant “Dominion Voting” and finally, made my way to CV32 and CV33, which my Navy background inserted due to the mixed wires as carrier designations.

LOL, if this is what growing old is like in the head and gets worse, not sure I like this!

EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!
EV32...EV33!

[spacewarp]

They keep saying it’s because the lists were checked against the lists that are sent to the parties, and by law those lists are required to match the official list.

So, when he said that many had no serial number or had duplicate serial numbers, and that they compared against all three lists, the press is...... Oh, no. LYING.

[Rennes Templar]

Why? This thread has had 107 replies and still going, with good discussion.

[amnestynone]

Sounds like Cyber Ninajs may very well of screwed up. and now the enemies of Democracy are using it to debunk the entire audit. You have to be very careful when dealing with liberals and be sure to cover your tracks.

[Lee'sGhost]

“Stop posting these articles.”

SMH... I guess these people want two things, to be completely uninformed about what the enemy is doing and to prevent discussion about how to defeat them.

Sort of related, I have a retort for libtards who scoff at Fox or OAN or NewsMax, saying that people shouldn’t watch them. It goes...

“Yeah, limiting your news sources to only those that represent YOUR point of view makes you SO much better informed. Yeah. That’s the ticket.”

[Rennes Templar]

Right.

My reply tp the stop posting poster:

Why? This thread has had 107 replies and still going, with good discussion.

[yoe]

Fact check is without facts on this issue.

[Svartalfiar]

The auditors aren't saying any ballots are missing - that would be huge news. They're saying more ballots were received than mailed out. The county says those extra ballots were in-person early voting.

That sounds plausible but it has to be squared against the in-person voting numbers the county originally reported. I'm assuming the auditors will do that.

That's exactly my point. If the extra mail-in ballots were actually from the early in-person voting, then they should have that same number of ballots missing from the number of people who early-voted in person. But no one ever noticed they were missing (correct?), so how did 74M ballots get added to one place, when they apparently were never subtracted from the other in the first place? I would think having a couple hundred ballots missing would have been noticeable and reported a while ago. Much less tens of thousands missing.

[semimojo]

But no one ever noticed they were missing (correct?), so how did 74M ballots get added to one place, when they apparently were never subtracted from the other in the first place?

I suspect the county will say there never were any missing ballots.

They always knew those 74k were early in- person ballots and their numbers match.

[Svartalfiar]

I suspect the county will say there never were any missing ballots.

They always knew those 74k were early in- person ballots and their numbers match.

Yes, that's my assumption as well. BUT, shouldn't the audit have their count off? The county might know exactly where they supposedly came from, but they're keeping everything as hidden as possible. On the audit-side though, their count should show even total numbers, if there's no fraud/major errors. What were the audit's count on the in-person early voting? I assume they saw those numbers as good/even, since they're commenting at all on a potential extra 74M ballots. Or did the audit not even look at in-person for some reason?