KEY RESULT — More than 57,000 potentially illegal ballots.



The number of illegal ballots found in Maricopa County (more than 57,000) is over 5 times the current amount separating President Trump and Joe Biden in Arizona.

and as the finding is that Biden is the correct winner, then those 57,000 must be split pretty evenly to Former President Trump and the rightly elected President Biden.

---

The count so far......

70 legal challenges and $6m wasted and still no evidence.

---

KEY RESULT — More than 57,000 potentially illegal ballots.



The number of illegal ballots found in Maricopa County (more than 57,000) is over 5 times the current amount separating President Trump and Joe Biden in Arizona.

and as the finding is that Biden is the correct winner, then those 57,000 must be split pretty evenly to Former President Trump and the rightly elected President Biden.

---

The count so far......

70 legal challenges and $6m wasted and still no evidence.

No, not even close

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/09/24/maricop...-question/

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Another thing that was mentioned and then never brought up was the paper analysis. Going into details on how they can see ridges of pen ink and they have a ton of data. Then nothing in the report about it.

Did they find nothing, are they withholding the info, what is going on there?

With the illegal ballots, the canvassing that was done separately, and whatever comes from the paper analysis.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

KEY RESULT — More than 57,000 potentially illegal ballots.



The number of illegal ballots found in Maricopa County (more than 57,000) is over 5 times the current amount separating President Trump and Joe Biden in Arizona.

"Potentially illegal ballots."  

No indication that all 57,000 of what you claim are potentially illegal ballots were actually illegal, and no indication that all 57,000 of those potentially illegal ballots were votes for Biden. 

If that's the "key result," then you have nothing.   Did you notice that in the final report there is no report of actual fraud that has been uncovered?  

Face it, the Arizona Republican Party was conned into paying $6 million for an audit that promised in advance to overturn the result, and failed to do so.  

The actual fraud was by Cyber Ninjas, who made off with $6 million.

But hopefully we can all agree that ideally there would be near zero potentially illegal ballots and absolutely zero illegal votes.  For me, I have accepted that regardless of any findings there will never be a reversal and we are just going to have to survive this current [BLEEP] show of a presidency.  I do wonder though how many people that did vote for Biden regret it now.  Judging by the approval ratings I would conclude a lot.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

"Potentially illegal ballots."  

No indication that all 57,000 of what you claim are potentially illegal ballots were actually illegal, and no indication that all 57,000 of those potentially illegal ballots were votes for Biden. 

If that's the "key result," then you have nothing.   Did you notice that in the final report there is no report of actual fraud that has been uncovered?  

Face it, the Arizona Republican Party was conned into paying $6 million for an audit that promised in advance to overturn the result, and failed to do so.  

The actual fraud was by Cyber Ninjas, who made off with $6 million.

But hopefully we can all agree that ideally there would be near zero potentially illegal ballots and absolutely zero illegal votes.  For me, I have accepted that regardless of any findings there will never be a reversal and we are just going to have to survive this current shitshow of a presidency.  I do wonder though how many people that did vote for Biden regret it now.  Judging by the approval ratings I would conclude a lot.

If the other audits happen quickly and the state reps actually do something about it and decertify, then we would have to have a new election or let the house pick by state.

I think that is probably the plan they are trying to push. The military won't do anything, the RINOs won't fightback because they prefer not being in power, and you can't just name Trump the winner even if he was.

Coming out now is that they didn't use the legal paper for any of the ballots. 100% of the votes was on illegal paper in order to hide all the ballots that needed to be created.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

But hopefully we can all agree that ideally there would be near zero potentially illegal ballots and absolutely zero illegal votes.  For me, I have accepted that regardless of any findings there will never be a reversal and we are just going to have to survive this current shitshow of a presidency.  I do wonder though how many people that did vote for Biden regret it now.  Judging by the approval ratings I would conclude a lot.

If the other audits happen quickly and the state reps actually do something about it and decertify, then we would have to have a new election or let the house pick by state.

I think that is probably the plan they are trying to push. The military won't do anything, the RINOs won't fightback because they prefer not being in power, and you can't just name Trump the winner even if he was.

Coming out now is that they didn't use the legal paper for any of the ballots. 100% of the votes was on illegal paper in order to hide all the ballots that needed to be created.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I get that there were irregularities in many states.  I am also dismayed that people on the other side are not as concerned about the possibility of election fraud.  The fact remains if every accusation was confirmed I just do not see the election being overturned.  The prudent thing to do here is work at preventing any doubt about results in the future from both sides.  Unfortunately again we have become so divided I don’t see either side working to address even that.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

If the other audits happen quickly and the state reps actually do something about it and decertify, then we would have to have a new election or let the house pick by state.

I think that is probably the plan they are trying to push. The military won't do anything, the RINOs won't fightback because they prefer not being in power, and you can't just name Trump the winner even if he was.

Coming out now is that they didn't use the legal paper for any of the ballots. 100% of the votes was on illegal paper in order to hide all the ballots that needed to be created.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I get that there were irregularities in many states.  I am also dismayed that people on the other side are not as concerned about the possibility of election fraud.  The fact remains if every accusation was confirmed I just do not see the election being overturned.  The prudent thing to do here is work at preventing any doubt about results in the future from both sides.  Unfortunately again we have become so divided I don’t see either side working to address even that.

Given that democrats are typically the beneficiaries of these irregularities, don’t count on them to work for more accountability. On the contrary, they’re pushing for voter regulations which make it easier to corrupt the process.

---

Yeah, the for the people act is a joke. I have no doubts there is some serious cheating going on. I would have liked to see which potential votes were for which candidate. Regardless, it's clear that we need to be tightening the reigns on voting, not loosening them. Also, something that is going unmentioned, is that we need to crack down on ballot harvesting, election contributions, and social media.

---

Yeah, the for the people act is a joke. I have no doubts there is some serious cheating going on. I would have liked to see which potential votes were for which candidate. Regardless, it's clear that we need to be tightening the reigns on voting, not loosening them. Also, something that is going unmentioned, is that we need to crack down on ballot harvesting, election contributions, and social media.

Please explain what you mean by cracking down on election contributions and social media.  I don't see how you can do that without violating the First Amendment.

---

Auditors Say 23,344 Mail-in Ballots Were Sent to the Wrong Address But Were Completed and Counted Anyway

https://www.westernjournal.com/auditors-...N9AXJ4FE4Q

The Wall Street Journal has a comment about that.  You might not be able to read this since it's behind a pay wall, but here's the link:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum...opin_pos_1

True to his nature, Mr. Trump is claiming vindication based on the audit’s analysis of voter files. As the biggest example, he says Arizona’s results include “23,344 mail-in ballots, despite the person no longer living at that address. Phantom voters!” No. Did he read the report? This figure comes from comparing voter records to a commercial database on change-of-address filings, but look at the caveats.

Cyber Ninjas says errors are normal when using commercial data. Most of these voters barely moved: 15,035 stayed in Maricopa County, and another 1,718 went somewhere else in Arizona. Only 40% were Democrats and 33% Republicans. The audit also admits there are “ways that a voter could receive their ballot which in some cases would not violate the law.”

College students move often, but they could easily pick up ballots that were inadvertently sent home or to old roommates. What about people serving in the military, taking extended vacations, or working remotely? Address changes were probably noisier than usual last year, given how the pandemic scrambled life. The report offers no evidence that any of these people voted illegally.

---

Yeah, the for the people act is a joke. I have no doubts there is some serious cheating going on. I would have liked to see which potential votes were for which candidate. Regardless, it's clear that we need to be tightening the reigns on voting, not loosening them. Also, something that is going unmentioned, is that we need to crack down on ballot harvesting, election contributions, and social media.

Please explain what you mean by cracking down on election contributions and social media.  I don't see how you can do that without violating the First Amendment.

I have been all in on election fraud because the numbers just don't make sense. The turnout numbers didn't make sense and the drop in rejected ballots didn't make sense. I wanted an explanation for that, and the best form of it came when I realized how Zuckerberg was manipulating the voting precincts with his "charity." The dude almost single-handedly swayed the election, even if there was machine voter fraud, as so many people believe. Here is a great read from NPR about the role this dude played in "saving" the election, lol. 

How Mark Zuckerberg's Millions Made Election 2020 Go Smoothly : NPR

Pay particular attention to where he donated funds in that link. You can see he primarily contributed to cities in PA, MI, WI, and MN... even NC to a lesser degree. He spread out 350 million dollars all over the country. He contributed donations across many different districts to make it look like he was being even-handed. He even donated money to more red states and districts than blue. However, the guy donated significantly more money PER VOTER to blue districts, and it's not even close. The end result is a process that looks fair, but contributed significantly more to the cause of democrats than republicans, which is how it made it past the legal system. Take a look at how donations were distributed in PA.



If you take it at face value, you can argue that he's just making sure all these counties are funded, but the truth is that he is swaying the election by giving significantly more to blue districts. This would be the equivalent of someone making a pizza for 10 people, then making it so that he cut one quarter of that pizza into 6 slices, then divided the other 3/4's to the remaining 4 people. And, you can't say that these districts are larger, because the money is split up PER VOTER, not per district. 

So what did he do with that money? He came in and trained workers how to accept ballots. The rejection rate went from 3% in those blue counties in PA, WI, and MI to .3%. That's an insane amount of swing in counties that favor Dems. Combine that with ballot harvesting that is almost certainly occurring (we know it's happening in MN illegally and Cali legally), and you have the conditions to tile the election in your favor. It's almost impossible to prove. And Zuckerberg is just one person. You can't tell me there weren't others doing this.

I want big money out of elections. I think we limit campaign contributions to 100 bucks a person and that's it. No other contributions. I think you take private money out of the electoral process (that parts that are supposed to be run by the government).

---

Please explain what you mean by cracking down on election contributions and social media.  I don't see how you can do that without violating the First Amendment.

I have been all in on election fraud because the numbers just don't make sense. The turnout numbers didn't make sense and the drop in rejected ballots didn't make sense. I wanted an explanation for that, and the best form of it came when I realized how Zuckerberg was manipulating the voting precincts with his "charity." The dude almost single-handedly swayed the election, even if there was machine voter fraud, as so many people believe. Here is a great read from NPR about the role this dude played in "saving" the election, lol. 

How Mark Zuckerberg's Millions Made Election 2020 Go Smoothly : NPR

Pay particular attention to where he donated funds in that link. You can see he primarily contributed to cities in PA, MI, WI, and MN... even NC to a lesser degree. He spread out 350 million dollars all over the country. He contributed donations across many different districts to make it look like he was being even-handed. He even donated money to more red states and districts than blue. However, the guy donated significantly more money PER VOTER to blue districts, and it's not even close. The end result is a process that looks fair, but contributed significantly more to the cause of democrats than republicans, which is how it made it past the legal system. Take a look at how donations were distributed in PA.



If you take it at face value, you can argue that he's just making sure all these counties are funded, but the truth is that he is swaying the election by giving significantly more to blue districts. This would be the equivalent of someone making a pizza for 10 people, then making it so that he cut one quarter of that pizza into 6 slices, then divided the other 3/4's to the remaining 4 people. And, you can't say that these districts are larger, because the money is split up PER VOTER, not per district. 

So what did he do with that money? He came in and trained workers how to accept ballots. The rejection rate went from 3% in those blue counties in PA, WI, and MI to .3%. That's an insane amount of swing in counties that favor Dems. Combine that with ballot harvesting that is almost certainly occurring (we know it's happening in MN illegally and Cali legally), and you have the conditions to tile the election in your favor. It's almost impossible to prove. And Zuckerberg is just one person. You can't tell me there weren't others doing this.

I want big money out of elections. I think we limit campaign contributions to 100 bucks a person and that's it. No other contributions. I think you take private money out of the electoral process (that parts that are supposed to be run by the government).

I don't agree with your conclusion.  All he did was expedite the process.  He didn't drive more voters to the polls, or anything like that.  He gave money to local governments to ensure that ballots were counted within a reasonable amount of time, so the process wouldn't take many weeks, and lead to even more questions about accuracy and fairness.   

Secondly, I have heard this "take big money out of elections" idea for many years, and I have always opposed it.  Restrictions of that sort are a violation of the First Amendment.  For example, I am restricted as the the amount of money I can give personally to a Presidential candidate.  But am I restricted from renting a billboard and expressing my political views?   Can I buy a newspaper and express myself that way?  What's the difference in all these things?  Nothing.  There's no difference.  You cannot tell a newspaper what they can or cannot say.  That's an obvious violation of the First Amendment.  So any rich person can buy a newspaper and say what they want to say.  They can buy a newpaper for $100 million and print as many pro-candidate editorials as they want.  There's no restriction on that and there never can be.  So why am I personally restricted from giving a personal contribution over a certain amount to a candidate?  It doesn't make sense.  I don't think it's constitutional to tell me, or a corporation, or any other entity, that they cannot give as much money directly to a political campaign as they want.

---

Auditors Say 23,344 Mail-in Ballots Were Sent to the Wrong Address But Were Completed and Counted Anyway

https://www.westernjournal.com/auditors-...N9AXJ4FE4Q

The Wall Street Journal has a comment about that.  You might not be able to read this since it's behind a pay wall, but here's the link:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum...opin_pos_1

True to his nature, Mr. Trump is claiming vindication based on the audit’s analysis of voter files. As the biggest example, he says Arizona’s results include “23,344 mail-in ballots, despite the person no longer living at that address. Phantom voters!” No. Did he read the report? This figure comes from comparing voter records to a commercial database on change-of-address filings, but look at the caveats.

Cyber Ninjas says errors are normal when using commercial data. Most of these voters barely moved: 15,035 stayed in Maricopa County, and another 1,718 went somewhere else in Arizona. Only 40% were Democrats and 33% Republicans. The audit also admits there are “ways that a voter could receive their ballot which in some cases would not violate the law.”

College students move often, but they could easily pick up ballots that were inadvertently sent home or to old roommates. What about people serving in the military, taking extended vacations, or working remotely? Address changes were probably noisier than usual last year, given how the pandemic scrambled life. The report offers no evidence that any of these people voted illegally.

You're ignoring the problem and trying to just say well they could get their ballots and it wasn't enough votes to flip the election. When did you hear them say anything about Trump winning? They did not for a reason. The audit showed that the election was not valid and legal, it cannot be certified as is. There is no way to prove mail-in ballots are legally received and filled out by the correct person. Deleting election records that have to be kept for 2 years. Using illegal paper.

It isn't about making Trump the winner, it is about decertifying the election because there is no way to know who legally won. The issues have to be fixed and a new election for federal races at a minimum.


The same results will happen in the other states once they pick up.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

1. Maricopa claimed there were no duplicate mail-in ballots.  In fact there were far more duplicates than those required to change the outcome in the Presidential race.  That has now been established.  Either (1) Maricopa lied but actually de-duplicated the ballots (meaning the results stand) or Maricopa did not de-duplicate the mail-in envelopes and the results are impossible to validate because some 17,000 duplicate votes were cast.

2. Maricopa lied about their election management system never being connected to the Internet.  It has been conclusively and forensically established that indeed it was.  When it was is immaterial; the lie, standing alone, is enough.

3. Maricopa intentionally violated federal law in the maintenance of electronic records specifically including the chain of custody by not issuing individual login credentials to the authorized users for each function.  This is a direct violation of federal law and it was an intentional act.  These are laws, not suggestions.

4.  One or more people intentionally destroyed security logs.  At least one such person has been positively identified.  That is a criminal act, standing alone, and must be prosecuted.

5. The databases were intentionally destroyed by one or more persons.  The person who did #4 either conspired with said person(s) who destroyed the databases, was the person who did so, or did so to cover up the act without knowing who committed the first act.  Whatever the facts on that linkage may be it was a deliberate, criminal act standing alone and must be prosecuted.

6. The so-called "auditors" hired by Maricopa are criminally incompetent or even worse, actively involved in the above.  They must be named and prosecuted.  Specifically, they failed to inspect the unallocated disk space on the EMS, a basic part of forensics as criminals often delete evidence of their activity.  Said material was still there, so had the "auditors" hired by Maricopa been competent they would have discovered it.

What was not proved was that Trump won.  But what was proved was that there is no honest assertion that can be made that either of the two Presidential candidates in serious contention won.  The margin of victory is within the margin of dispute and it has been proved that electronic records critical to validate what occurred throughout the election process were deliberately destroyed by persons(s) who had physical access to the systems in question, with at least one such person being allegedly identified by security camera footage.

There may well be more here -- but what's been discovered thus far and proved (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:

1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was not conducted in accordance with Federal Law.

2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are not able to be confirmed since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes it is impossible to identify them.  Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist.  We now know more than 17,000 in fact do exist and the envelopes still exist.  What we cannot prove one way or another is whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted.  We thus have no way to know who won.

3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis about the equipment never being connected to the Internet.

4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that destruction and identification of the person who did so.  This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.

5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was not recoverable and likely is not recoverable.

By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was falsely certified.

What's the remedy for this?

That's a separate debate -- but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Finally, not only was their forensic computer person credible he displayed exactly the process that I, as a person skilled in the art and who has performed computer forensics, would utilize.  I found no fault in his procedures, his process and analysis.  Not did I find him to make a single unproved assertion of fact.  This is exactly what a professional is supposed to do in this field.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243697

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

I have been all in on election fraud because the numbers just don't make sense. The turnout numbers didn't make sense and the drop in rejected ballots didn't make sense. I wanted an explanation for that, and the best form of it came when I realized how Zuckerberg was manipulating the voting precincts with his "charity." The dude almost single-handedly swayed the election, even if there was machine voter fraud, as so many people believe. Here is a great read from NPR about the role this dude played in "saving" the election, lol. 

How Mark Zuckerberg's Millions Made Election 2020 Go Smoothly : NPR

Pay particular attention to where he donated funds in that link. You can see he primarily contributed to cities in PA, MI, WI, and MN... even NC to a lesser degree. He spread out 350 million dollars all over the country. He contributed donations across many different districts to make it look like he was being even-handed. He even donated money to more red states and districts than blue. However, the guy donated significantly more money PER VOTER to blue districts, and it's not even close. The end result is a process that looks fair, but contributed significantly more to the cause of democrats than republicans, which is how it made it past the legal system. Take a look at how donations were distributed in PA.



If you take it at face value, you can argue that he's just making sure all these counties are funded, but the truth is that he is swaying the election by giving significantly more to blue districts. This would be the equivalent of someone making a pizza for 10 people, then making it so that he cut one quarter of that pizza into 6 slices, then divided the other 3/4's to the remaining 4 people. And, you can't say that these districts are larger, because the money is split up PER VOTER, not per district. 

So what did he do with that money? He came in and trained workers how to accept ballots. The rejection rate went from 3% in those blue counties in PA, WI, and MI to .3%. That's an insane amount of swing in counties that favor Dems. Combine that with ballot harvesting that is almost certainly occurring (we know it's happening in MN illegally and Cali legally), and you have the conditions to tile the election in your favor. It's almost impossible to prove. And Zuckerberg is just one person. You can't tell me there weren't others doing this.

I want big money out of elections. I think we limit campaign contributions to 100 bucks a person and that's it. No other contributions. I think you take private money out of the electoral process (that parts that are supposed to be run by the government).

I don't agree with your conclusion.  All he did was expedite the process.  He didn't drive more voters to the polls, or anything like that.  He gave money to local governments to ensure that ballots were counted within a reasonable amount of time, so the process wouldn't take many weeks, and lead to even more questions about accuracy and fairness.   

Secondly, I have heard this "take big money out of elections" idea for many years, and I have always opposed it.  Restrictions of that sort are a violation of the First Amendment.  For example, I am restricted as the the amount of money I can give personally to a Presidential candidate.  But am I restricted from renting a billboard and expressing my political views?   Can I buy a newspaper and express myself that way?  What's the difference in all these things?  Nothing.  There's no difference.  You cannot tell a newspaper what they can or cannot say.  That's an obvious violation of the First Amendment.  So any rich person can buy a newspaper and say what they want to say.  They can buy a newpaper for $100 million and print as many pro-candidate editorials as they want.  There's no restriction on that and there never can be.  So why am I personally restricted from giving a personal contribution over a certain amount to a candidate?  It doesn't make sense.  I don't think it's constitutional to tell me, or a corporation, or any other entity, that they cannot give as much money directly to a political campaign as they want.

Ok, Marty... what's the justification for giving more PER PERSON to blue districts in swing states? Again, it's not that he just gave more to a district, which could be justified by saying there are more people in those districts... he gave SIGNFICANTLY more PER PERSON in heavily populated blue counties, as much as 75 cents on the dollar, which resulted in record changes in rejection rates for those areas. Why? Because they set up specialized training that "improved" how these workers handled the ballots. By improved, they mean they taught them to ignore the standards normally used to reject bad ballots. It's not a coincidence. Also, I don't think more people showed up to the polls. I think there's a lot of ballot harvesting going on in those heavily populated areas. I can't prove this, but we know it's happening. We do not want our electoral process to include ballot harvesting. It's a terrible mechanism that lends itself to all kinds of shenanigans. 

As to your other point, this is one of my biggest frustration with a conservative mindset (not to be confused with conservative political point of view); you would cut off your nose to spite your face because it's always been done a certain way. We the people have almost no say in who we appoint to these government spots. We just don't raise enough money to be relevant. It's not sustainable if something isn't changed. We waste SO much money that could be better spent on other things. Look at this waste of money:

Most expensive ever: 2020 election cost $14.4 billion • OpenSecrets

Lol, 14.4 billion spent for some congressional seats and Biden vs. Trump? Get the [BLEEP] out of here. What else could be done with that money. Get the big business out of politics. This is how we end up with an unholy threeway going on between the government, media, and corporations. It's sickening.

---

1. Maricopa claimed there were no duplicate mail-in ballots.  In fact there were far more duplicates than those required to change the outcome in the Presidential race.  That has now been established.  Either (1) Maricopa lied but actually de-duplicated the ballots (meaning the results stand) or Maricopa did not de-duplicate the mail-in envelopes and the results are impossible to validate because some 17,000 duplicate votes were cast.

2. Maricopa lied about their election management system never being connected to the Internet.  It has been conclusively and forensically established that indeed it was.  When it was is immaterial; the lie, standing alone, is enough.

3. Maricopa intentionally violated federal law in the maintenance of electronic records specifically including the chain of custody by not issuing individual login credentials to the authorized users for each function.  This is a direct violation of federal law and it was an intentional act.  These are laws, not suggestions.

4.  One or more people intentionally destroyed security logs.  At least one such person has been positively identified.  That is a criminal act, standing alone, and must be prosecuted.

5. The databases were intentionally destroyed by one or more persons.  The person who did #4 either conspired with said person(s) who destroyed the databases, was the person who did so, or did so to cover up the act without knowing who committed the first act.  Whatever the facts on that linkage may be it was a deliberate, criminal act standing alone and must be prosecuted.

6. The so-called "auditors" hired by Maricopa are criminally incompetent or even worse, actively involved in the above.  They must be named and prosecuted.  Specifically, they failed to inspect the unallocated disk space on the EMS, a basic part of forensics as criminals often delete evidence of their activity.  Said material was still there, so had the "auditors" hired by Maricopa been competent they would have discovered it.

What was not proved was that Trump won.  But what was proved was that there is no honest assertion that can be made that either of the two Presidential candidates in serious contention won.  The margin of victory is within the margin of dispute and it has been proved that electronic records critical to validate what occurred throughout the election process were deliberately destroyed by persons(s) who had physical access to the systems in question, with at least one such person being allegedly identified by security camera footage.

There may well be more here -- but what's been discovered thus far and proved (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:

1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was not conducted in accordance with Federal Law.

2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are not able to be confirmed since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes it is impossible to identify them.  Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist.  We now know more than 17,000 in fact do exist and the envelopes still exist.  What we cannot prove one way or another is whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted.  We thus have no way to know who won.

3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis about the equipment never being connected to the Internet.

4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that destruction and identification of the person who did so.  This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.

5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was not recoverable and likely is not recoverable.

By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was falsely certified.

What's the remedy for this?

That's a separate debate -- but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Finally, not only was their forensic computer person credible he displayed exactly the process that I, as a person skilled in the art and who has performed computer forensics, would utilize.  I found no fault in his procedures, his process and analysis.  Not did I find him to make a single unproved assertion of fact.  This is exactly what a professional is supposed to do in this field.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243697

Someone figured out the copy and paste feature! Good job!

---

AZ Audit Could Not Find The Identity Of 86,391 Voters… Look Who They Voted For…

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09...filiation/

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Remember the good old days when ballots were secret? Now we can rest assured that the government will always know exactly who to put against the wall voted for their opponents in the last election.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

HUGE DEVELOPMENT! They Got Caught! 24 Criminal Operatives Caught on Video Stuffing Dropbox with 1,900 Ballots in 3 Days (VIDEO)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09...ays-video/

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

America's Elections Are Rigged (And Everybody Knows It)

If you want to unravel the mysterious results of the 2020 election, you must begin by asking a simple question: why were 78 million American votes from 800 counties in 7 states sent overseas to be “handled” by a bankrupt Spanish company in Barcelona?

Continued -


https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/americ...rigged-and

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"