AZ Audit hearing live. Stunning numbers of vote fraud!

[Dr Grump]

Yet Trump got nearly 75mil votes, even from unintelligent people like me as you just described it. If he was so hated how did he get 12 mil more votes than he did in 2016? Doesn’t compute. And Biden has been pretty awful thus far as I knew he would be.

I don't think you unintelligent. In other posts, which you might or might not have read, I put Trump voters into three categories - Republicans who are voting Republican, those who hate Biden/Clinton etc, Trump supporters (the last two can sometimes be inclusive). It is the last ones who I think are unintelligent. I think you are more Republican and their ideals than a lover of Trump. Could be wrong.

Biden has been fine. Not outstanding, but not too bad either. I like how he gave it to the interviewer who asked him if he felt responsible for people in Afghanistan if they pulled out. He said 'no. It's not up to America to solve all the ills of the world where it's national interests are not at stake.' I agree with him. All these journos in the US are always taking the moral high ground, like politicians have that choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

How long till this is settled you think? I mean, government ain't gonna do shit. Courts ain't gonna do shit. More voting SURE AS FUCK ain't gonna do it.

What's next? Government nope, courts nope, voting nope...what's next?

It's been settled. Trump lost. End of story.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said sarcastically he got 75 when he was the most hated man in America by your view.

Ahhh. See, that's all you had to say! You don't actually believe Trump got 75 million votes. You think he didn't. Got it. How was his total inflated? Fraud? I ask honestly.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

How long till this is settled you think? I mean, government ain't gonna do shit. Courts ain't gonna do shit. More voting SURE AS FUCK ain't gonna do it.

What's next? Government nope, courts nope, voting nope...what's next?

It's been settled. Trump lost. End of story

That's just it. It's not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's just it. It's not.

In what fantasy alternative universe? In what court, in what State legislature, in what institution anywhere?

 

[theHawk]

STUNNING in race decided by 10,457 votes!!


3,981 voted despite registered AFTER Oct 15 deadline
11,326 voted who were NOT on rolls on Nov 7 but WERE on Dec 4
18,000 voted and then were removed from rolls AFTER election
74,243 mail-in ballots w/ NO evidence of ever being sent




Obvious cheating happened. Maricopa County has lots of splainin’ to do!

Trump won AZ!

Fine
You just set the bar
Now bring that fucking Evidence tomorrow
No……..stalling
No…….it’s coming
Fucking deliver.

NOW.

There will be no evidence. Look around this thread at the prostrate Trumpers passing around the chalice of koolaid. They don't NEED any evidence.

^^i called it in post #4
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

i called it in post #4

That someone would predict that there will be no evidence? I'll say it again: there will be no evidence. That is a very safe bet.

 

[theHawk]

i called it in post #4

That someone would predict that there will be no evidence? I'll say it again: there will be no evidence. That is a very safe bet.

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

 

[Dr Grump]

How long till this is settled you think? I mean, government ain't gonna do shit. Courts ain't gonna do shit. More voting SURE AS FUCK ain't gonna do it.

What's next? Government nope, courts nope, voting nope...what's next?

It's been settled. Trump lost. End of story

That's just it. It's not.

Um, yeah it is. I mean, in Trumpie whackadoodle land it's not, but that's not reality, in which case you are right. However, in the real world - slam dunk. Over.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

Bipartisan normal people showing irrefutable proof. Not supposition (as your link in the first post of this thread is - all that evidence is supposition, not one iota of proof). It shouldn't be that hard to do. Let's not forget there have been a tonne of allegations. Not one of any meaning has been proven. Not one.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

And on cue and as expected, the usual suspects are doing nothing but crying about the source, refusing to watch videos and putting their hands over their eyes claiming they see nothing. The poor snowflakes expected things about bamboo like their LSM masters claimed. Instead they got the actual facts they can’t just sweep under the rug.

Asking if there is a credible source scares you?

No, that doesn't scare anyone, but it is well known that the only sources you consider "credible" are the liberal media propagandists that you know will not report on this up to, and until it is too big to ignore. Then they will still treat it as CT....

If that information was released, there will be a record of it. Why not point to that? Do you really expect anyone to take "because I said so" as proof?

No, I don't...But, this could be a case of the totallity of the information hasn't been released yet, and therefore not officially in the public sphere...You asked earlier who Navarro was, he was in the Trump administration but has an impressive background before serving in the administration...

"Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist and author. He served in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator."

Peter Navarro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, I am pretty sure that just the fact that he served under Trump will disqualify him in your eyes....In any case, I think we should wait until the AZ senate puts out their final report...

If the information hasn't been released, then what is the thread supposed to be about? Somebody who doesn't know spouting numbers?

I've read about half way through this thread, and I feel compelled to weigh in on a couple of these questions since nobody has directly addressed them yet at this point in the thread, and I'm not particularly interested in reading another 7 pages of post trees containing volleying wisecracks. I think the legitimate points of inquiry in this thread can be summed up by the following two questions.

So you're saying that every disputed vote went to Biden. How do you know that?

This warrants a response, since other people reading this thread might be thinking the same. First thing, though - the OP didn't claim that every vote included in the numbers outlined at today's hearing went to Biden. That wasn't the purpose at today's hearing. Today they were just outlining the number of votes that were flagged in certain categories during the audit, so that the AZ senate could follow up with the election officials in Maricopa county and determine whether they're able to provide information that could reconcile any of the categorized discrepancies, for purposes of the forthcoming report. If you haven't been following the audit, there's been an ongoing struggle between the AZ senate/auditors and the Maricopa County election officials for cooperation and info sharing throughout this process, so the reason for the information being presented at the hearing today was a function of that.

In other words, they want to inquire, for the respective categories of flagged votes, if Maricopa County has any information that can provide a valid explanation for:

- why certain people who voted were not on the voter rolls on Nov 7, but were on Dec 4
- why certain people who voted were removed from rolls after the election
- why there are no absentee ballot request forms on record for the flagged absentee ballots

The audits are looking at each individual ballot so they know exactly who the 'illegal' votes went to. Will that info be made public? If not, why not?

Fair question. As I understand it from articles I read after the audit was completed, there will be a full report issued to the Arizona senate, which is expected to take several more weeks to complete. I have no inside knowledge about what specific info will be provided in the report, but it stands to reason that it will include a breakdown of the votes flagged in each category in question by candidate, at least for the federal elections (President, U.S. Senate and House), and perhaps the down-ballot state and local elections as well. But that information has not been made public as of today, only the total number of votes for each category in question.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

That's just it. It's not.

In what fantasy alternative universe? In what court, in what State legislature, in what institution anywhere?

Well, the Supreme Court just flat out refused to hear the case. Republicans at the national level are refusing to address the issue seriously, merely playing lip service. Democrats are using inflammatory, and derisive language toward US citizens that THEY represent.
The mainstream press refuses to cover it and what they do address is slanderous, derogatory and opinion driven. This often includes both right and left wings of the media.
This was a forensic audit. Which is the international standard for election review.
When the UN brings in election oversight and determines there has been 'foul play' these are the exact same methods they aid nations by employing.
This is not a couple rednecks looking at hanging chads.
This is the core of it though. When you have an audit, that may (we don't know yet), but may, unequivocally prove foul play, and NO ONE says anything, that is bad.
It is bad for you, and it is bad for me. Do you know why?
Because the next vote you hear about may be in the form of a 5.56 round. When people have no way of voicing their concerns, or feel they have no way to address matters legally, they can get very radical.
Elections a VERY VERY important. Transparency is VERY important. Open, and receptive courts, representatives, and a free press that addresses half of the electorate's concerns are VERY important.
I don't think people understand what happens in places where there is a complete disregard for a large percentage of a population. I don't think you do. I don't think Republican representative do either.
This thing must be taken seriously, or it will not end well.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

Bipartisan normal people showing irrefutable proof. Not supposition (as your link in the first post of this thread is - all that evidence is supposition, not one iota of proof). It shouldn't be that hard to do. Let's not forget there have been a tonne of allegations. Not one of any meaning has been proven. Not one.

Give me your opinion of this.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

Bipartisan normal people showing irrefutable proof. Not supposition (as your link in the first post of this thread is - all that evidence is supposition, not one iota of proof). It shouldn't be that hard to do. Let's not forget there have been a tonne of allegations. Not one of any meaning has been proven. Not one.

Give me your opinion of this.

Who are these people? Where did they get these ballots from? Are they original ballots? Have the ballots been doctored?

These are the first questions I thought of in 30 seconds. Goodness knows how many others I would come up with if I delved deeper.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

Bipartisan normal people showing irrefutable proof. Not supposition (as your link in the first post of this thread is - all that evidence is supposition, not one iota of proof). It shouldn't be that hard to do. Let's not forget there have been a tonne of allegations. Not one of any meaning has been proven. Not one.

Give me your opinion of this.

Who are these people? Where did they get these ballots from? Are they original ballots? Have the ballots been doctored?

These are the first questions I thought of in 30 seconds. Goodness knows how many others I would come up with if I delved deeper.

A judge is Fulton County Georgia ordered a forensic audit of the election results. This is one of the forensic auditors going over a batch of ballots that are under examination.

WATCH: Georgia Audit Uncovers 'Obvious and Clear' Evidence Of Fraud

According to reports, an audit of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia, discovered multiple batches of ballots that had been "clearly" and "obvio

en-volve.com

So, what do you think of this?

 

[Dr Grump]

A judge is Fulton County Georgia ordered a forensic audit of the election results. This is one of the forensic auditors going over a batch of ballots that are under examination.

WATCH: Georgia Audit Uncovers 'Obvious and Clear' Evidence Of Fraud

According to reports, an audit of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia, discovered multiple batches of ballots that had been "clearly" and "obvio

en-volve.com

So, what do you think of this?

Is it though? One of the forensic auditors? Says who?

WATCH: Georgia Audit Uncovers 'Obvious and Clear' Evidence Of Fraud

According to reports, an audit of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia, discovered multiple batches of ballots that had been "clearly" and "obvio

en-volve.com

I'll think you'll find that enVolve is the poor man's Onion.
Just going by headlines alone...

Snip:Misinformation Directory - FactCheck.org
enVolve

En-volve.com has this disclaimer on its “Website Terms of Use” page:

“The information presented on or through the Website is made available solely for general information and entertainment purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents.”

The site is registered through 1&1 Internet, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

That’s not it. A lot more mail in ballots, which are more prone to fraud.

As expected since there was, you know, a pandemic. More prone to fraud? Then show me one single example of significant fraud using mail in ballots. Or one shred of evidence of it ever happening. Because we have always had mail in voting. So show me evidence, not conjecture.

Your historically unpopular president got a record amount of votes and 12mil more than the last election.

He did, eh? So, apparently, in your world, all the fraud and overcounting (whatever the fk that distinction means to some people) was for Biden. And you think that sounds sane. Come on. No you don't. Listen to yourself.


He got that many votes because the participation rate shot up. You do know we measure popularity of Presidents in this sense by proportion, not by 'number of 'votes for', right? Historically unpopular. So unpopular, he drummed up an awful lot of votes against himself.

Didn’t say I had proof and never said just for Biden. You said Trump was wildly unpopular and I asked you how he got 12mil
More votes than in 2016 since you said he was wildly unpopular.

The "wildly unpopular" Trump also won 2,547 counties to Biden's 509 (record for lowest # of counties for the winner of a presidential election). In terms of percentages, that's 83.3% of counties in the nation won by Trump, and 16.7% won by Biden. So in context, Trump's 75 million votes and 2,547 counties set record benchmarks that had never been achieved by any presidential candidate in history, while in the same election, Biden absolutely smashes the record for the most votes ever received in a presidential election by almost 20% (12 million more than the prior record, 2008 Obama), while also setting the record for the fewest number of counties ever won by the winner of a presidential election .

 

[j-mac]

And on cue and as expected, the usual suspects are doing nothing but crying about the source, refusing to watch videos and putting their hands over their eyes claiming they see nothing. The poor snowflakes expected things about bamboo like their LSM masters claimed. Instead they got the actual facts they can’t just sweep under the rug.

Asking if there is a credible source scares you?

No, that doesn't scare anyone, but it is well known that the only sources you consider "credible" are the liberal media propagandists that you know will not report on this up to, and until it is too big to ignore. Then they will still treat it as CT....

If that information was released, there will be a record of it. Why not point to that? Do you really expect anyone to take "because I said so" as proof?

No, I don't...But, this could be a case of the totallity of the information hasn't been released yet, and therefore not officially in the public sphere...You asked earlier who Navarro was, he was in the Trump administration but has an impressive background before serving in the administration...

"Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist and author. He served in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator."

Peter Navarro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, I am pretty sure that just the fact that he served under Trump will disqualify him in your eyes....In any case, I think we should wait until the AZ senate puts out their final report...

Peter is a fine example of what happens to people who sell their credibility to be a loyal sycophant to the former president’s ass.

Sad

He's a conservative, and an accomplished one at that....To think you are even on par in life with him enough to criticize him on that level, just shows how far off you are....

Peter’s credibility is done.

Will only be hired now by sycophant think tanks of like sycophants.

Yes, yes…how dare he go against the progressive ideology…Just can’t stand people that may think differently than you eh?

 

[j-mac]

Do tell us, what would be an example of “evidence” that you accept as proof of other fraud?

Bipartisan normal people showing irrefutable proof. Not supposition (as your link in the first post of this thread is - all that evidence is supposition, not one iota of proof). It shouldn't be that hard to do. Let's not forget there have been a tonne of allegations. Not one of any meaning has been proven. Not one.

Give me your opinion of this.

Looks like duplicates to me…

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

A judge is Fulton County Georgia ordered a forensic audit of the election results. This is one of the forensic auditors going over a batch of ballots that are under examination.

WATCH: Georgia Audit Uncovers 'Obvious and Clear' Evidence Of Fraud

According to reports, an audit of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia, discovered multiple batches of ballots that had been "clearly" and "obvio

en-volve.com

So, what do you think of this?

Is it though? One of the forensic auditors? Says who?

WATCH: Georgia Audit Uncovers 'Obvious and Clear' Evidence Of Fraud

According to reports, an audit of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia, discovered multiple batches of ballots that had been "clearly" and "obvio

en-volve.com

I'll think you'll find that enVolve is the poor man's Onion.
Just going by headlines alone...

Snip:Misinformation Directory - FactCheck.org
enVolve

En-volve.com has this disclaimer on its “Website Terms of Use” page:

“The information presented on or through the Website is made available solely for general information and entertainment purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents.”

The site is registered through 1&1 Internet, a company that hides the identity and location of the owner of the website.

Hypothetically...let's say this is all on the up and up. this is all legit...because there is no way that we can take that line of thought into anything, or any news report that WE have not been intimately involved in writing. If we arrive at that conclusion everything is BS.

But let's suspend all that. Let's just call this all good and verified for RESEARCH sake.

What do you think of this?