Arizona Election Audit

[ClearwaterVol]

You, in particular, simply LOVE being lied to. There is no outlandish, political hoax that you won't swallow, as if an essential nutrient to you. Who even turns on MSNBC anymore, or CNN, etc?

I criticized Trump for throwing Pence under the bus and assuming a VP has the singular authority to put aside electors, so save your civics lesson for another leftist "cult member" like yourself. And seemingly unknown to you, we have rule of law which establishes a higher bar than your TDS standard, in which "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" is an incitement to violence. Higher than than calling into question the validity of an election in which Democrats superceded state and federal election law in multiple states, and every battleground state.

But let's play devil's advocate; if Trump was passing out secret decoder rings that when rubbed against a red hat, intoned "insurrection", how did hundreds of thousands of "cult members" not get the message, but only an infinitesimal smattering? And why did they come unarmed? Because, as the *facts* show despite weeks of lying by people like you, there was no spontaneous insurrection or planned insurrection by Trump, or anyone. There was a tiny faction looking for and planning trouble that no one on the right DIDN'T denounce. Contrast that with about ten months of violence (including actual murder) that Biden only obliquely referred to THREE MONTHS after it began, and that Democrats still don't acknowledge is going on. Contrast that with Republicans who uniformly denounced the capitol breach and the Marxist insurrectionists.

Don't preach to anyone about political violence, you intellectual wipe.

Seems like you are attempting to shift blame for the issues at the Capitol.

Trump deserves some blame for what happened. I still do not believe it rises to the level of criminal culpability, but to act like he doesn't deserve some blame is just plain silly.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If he didn't incite it, he doesn't bear responsibility; that's how the law regarding protected speech works, not that you'd know. Your willingness to see inference is not a legal - or ethical - basis for assigning culpability.

400 out of 10s of thousands, and of the tiny faction of 400 just a tiny faction are charged with conspiracy; the bulk were caught up in the excitement, and many of those simply wandered into the capitol left wide open by capitol police. Here's an exercise for you: how many capitol rioters are charged with conspiracy?

Some "INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!"....

Lastly, I already stated there was planning by a tiny faction, "you mental midget". Must I write AND read it for you?

I wasn't talking about Trump being held culpable by law enforcement agencies. That riot doesn't happen without a rally held under false pretenses. He does bear at least partial responsibility for how and why the incursion happened.

 

[Tastylicks]

I wasn't talking about Trump being held culpable by law enforcement agencies. That riot doesn't happen unless a rally held under false pretenses doesn't take place. He does bear at least partial responsibility for how and why the incursion happened.

If ANY other person took to the streets and declared our democratic election process to be a sham and called on his thousands of adoring supporters to march to the capitol, and then they did, resulting in 5 dead, he/she would be arrested no doubt and seen as a violent revolutionary

 

[allvol123]

They could speak up. They could admit Biden won, and ask the people to accept it. All it would take is words. Since Trump himself refuses to do that, it's up to the party. This isn't solving anything. It's just more chum in the water.

Wouldnt care. If citizens of a state want to audit the election for their state, I am good with that.

 

[NCFisher]

"Unofficially sanctioned"? LOL! That is a contradiction in terms. When something is sanctioned, it is by definition either official approval or official permission. You can't "unofficially sanction" an act or event, Short Bus.

The results in Arizona were certified by Arizona's Secretary of State on November 30th, with their 11 electoral votes being awarded to Joe Biden. The Cyber Ninjas can unleash their entire arsenal of throwing stars in Arizona if they want. Whatever they conclude, will not change a damn thing, even in the court of public opinion, because it's too easy to portray Doug Logan's company as being biased. The people who believe that Trump was cheated, will still believe that he was cheated... and the people who believe that Biden won a fair election, will not change their minds, based on conclusions drawn by the Cyber Ninjas.

I use the term "unofficial sanction" referring to public opinion, you LOLing dolt. If you don't understand something - a veritable cornucopia of things, apparently - you might recognize your shortcomings and simply ask.

Again, it's FOUR companies hired by AZ Senate Repubs, not just Cyber Ninjas. Why do you continue to lie about something I've already spanked you for doing?

Some people who think Trump was cheated will stay with that belief while others will not, just like a majority of Democrats who still think Trump was elected by Russian vote-changing. Perhaps those Republican voters would be more objective in the absence of a four year coup attempt, and 250 lawsuits by Dems to violate federal and state election laws, and then doing just that.

Funny how a preponderance of devious shite encourages the belief that more devious shite exists, eh?

 

[allvol123]

They could support Cheney's honesty instead of demonizing her and throwing her out.

Cheney is employed in Arizona?

 

[hog88]

If ANY other person took to the streets and declared our democratic election process to be a sham and called on his thousands of adoring supporters to march to the capitol, and then they did, resulting in 5 dead, he/she would be arrested no doubt and seen as a violent revolutionary

Doubt it.

 

[Sandman 423]

If ANY other person took to the streets and declared our democratic election process to be a sham and called on his thousands of adoring supporters to march to the capitol, and then they did, resulting in 5 dead, he/she would be arrested no doubt and seen as a violent revolutionary

Do you actually believe this^^^^^?

 

[NCFisher]

If ANY other person took to the streets and declared our democratic election process to be a sham and called on his thousands of adoring supporters to march to the capitol, and then they did, resulting in 5 dead, he/she would be arrested no doubt and seen as a violent revolutionary

Besides your other leaps of logic, four of those deaths are unrelated to the rioting. Contrast that to the approximately three dozen murders in the "peaceful protests".
The one death connected to the riots, was the woman shot by police. A killing I assume you approve - ?

If you're going to opine, know something.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I use the term "unofficial sanction" referring to public opinion, you LOLing dolt. If you don't understand something - a veritable cornucopia of things, apparently - you might recognize your shortcomings and simply ask.

Again, it's FOUR companies hired by AZ Senate Repubs, not just Cyber Ninjas. Why do you continue to lie about something I've already spanked you for doing?

Some people who think Trump was cheated will stay with that belief while others will not, just like a majority of Democrats who still think Trump was elected by Russian vote-changing. Perhaps those Republican voters would be more objective in the absence of a four year coup attempt, and 250 lawsuits by Dems to violate federal and state election laws, and then doing just that.

Funny how a preponderance of devious shite encourages the belief that more devious shite exists, eh?

You seem slow. Regardless of what you are referring to, "unofficial sanction" doesn't make any sense. It's a contradiction in terms.

That doesn't change anything. Cyber Ninjas (and what a ridiculous name) shouldn't be involved at all. If the point truly is to restore public trust that this was a free and fair election, then it was a mistake to involve a company owned by an openly biased person. That makes it too easy to cast doubt on the findings.

 

[NCFisher]

I wasn't talking about Trump being held culpable by law enforcement agencies. That riot doesn't happen unless a rally held under false pretenses doesn't take place. He does bear at least partial responsibility for how and why the incursion happened.

What false pretense was the (literally) 'Save America' rally held under?

Besides, "Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful," was the general refrain during months of violent "peaceful protests" including sustained attacks on government buildings (DC and nationally), personnel, and citizens. Remember when Secret Service evacuated Trump and the left derided him as a coward, etc? Or Maxine: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials Or Schumer threatening SCOTUS, and the subsequent mob banging at the doors of the court? I can go on.

But let the political left share the proletariat plight, suddenly it's insurrection. This is the mark of would be authoritarians.

 

[NCFisher]

You seem slow. Regardless of what you are referring to, "unofficial sanction" doesn't make any sense. It's a contradiction in terms.

That doesn't change anything. Cyber Ninjas (and what a ridiculous name) shouldn't be involved at all. If the point truly is to restore public trust that this was a free and fair election, then it was a mistake to involve a company owned by an openly biased person. That makes it too easy to cast doubt on the findings.

Official; government sanction. Unofficial: public sanction, an acceptance by some portion of public opinion. That's as base as the explanation gets.

This is probably the 3rd time hashing this; Cyber Ninjas doesn't matter. Unless the FOUR COMPANIES doing the audit issue a no fraud finding, the whole thing becomes public forum of antagonistic resolution; this is a good thing. Again, a declaration of fraud WILL NOT be merely accepted, and will undergo intense challenge from which a set of facts will be winnowed.

Why does this transparency give you the hives?

 

[NCFisher]

Seems like you are attempting to shift blame for the issues at the Capitol.

Trump deserves some blame for what happened. I still do not believe it rises to the level of criminal culpability, but to act like he doesn't deserve some blame is just plain silly.

It seems a lot of people are unfamiliar - or unconcerned - with the necessarily high bar set by SCOTUS in order to protect speech but not not speech inciting violence.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order to lose First Amendment protection as incitement, speech must be “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.”

In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court defined true threats as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” The Court clarified that the speaker “need not actually intend to carry out the threat.”
Unprotected Speech - FIRE

There is no allowance or provision for anyone, including courts, to insert hidden or assumed motive, as if they may divine the mind of a person or persons, and what they intended in the void of actual incitement of violence. Any less than a legal standard, at least of misdemeanor offense, is purely subjective.

Reivew and offer a thoughtful rebuttal.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Official; government sanction. Unofficial: public sanction, an acceptance by some portion of public opinion. That's as base as the explanation gets.

This is probably the 3rd time hashing this; Cyber Ninjas doesn't matter. Unless the FOUR COMPANIES doing the audit issue a no fraud finding, the whole thing becomes public forum of antagonistic resolution; this is a good thing. Again, a declaration of fraud WILL NOT be merely accepted, and will undergo intense challenge from which a set of facts will be winnowed.

Why does this transparency give you the hives?

That is not a definition of the word "sanction".

Per Oxford Languages:

SANCTION: (1) to give official permission or approval for (an act).
(2) impose a penalty on

Of course, Cyber Ninjas matters if they are a part of the damn audit! If the goal is to reassure the public that this was a free and fair election, (and what other purpose could there be? This won't change anything) that won't be achieved by employing the services of a company whose owner has already publicly reached a conclusive determination before the audit even began. It's too easy to cast doubt on this procedure because of Logan's involvement. He should not be a part of this. Period.

 

[NCFisher]

That is not a definition of the word "sanction".

Per Oxford Languages:

SANCTION: (1) to give official permission or approval for (an act).
(2) impose a penalty on

Of course, Cyber Ninjas matters if they are a part of the damn audit! If the goal is to reassure the public that this was a free and fair election, (and what other purpose could there be? This won't change anything) that won't be achieved by employing the services of a company whose owner has already publicly reached a conclusive determination before the audit even began. It's too easy to cast doubt on this procedure because of Logan's involvement. He should not be a part of this. Period.

You should broaden your understanding of the word; here, I'll help:
Merriam-Webster
1: a formal decree especially : an ecclesiastical decree
2aobsolete : a solemn agreement : OATH
b: something that makes an oath binding
3: the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law
4a: a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment
b: a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards
c: explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification : APPROBATION
5: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication

For the last time: the audit is not going to declare a finding of fraud, then go into a locked box never to be seen again. Like FBI files covering up the collusion hoax.

if a finding of no fraud, it's DONE and DONE by auditors picked by AZ Senate Republicans. Game over.
There's no problem here except you've become wed to a biased narrative that can't see the forest for the lone tree.

 

[BowlBrother85]

c: explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification :

A sanction is either officially or formally confirmed. You were trying to use the example of "public opinion" and in doing so, you misused a word. You are very inarticulate, and do that quite a bit I've noticed.

 

[luthervol]

if a finding of no fraud, it's DONE and DONE by auditors picked by AZ Senate Republicans. Game over.

Do you honestly believe that if there is a finding of no fraud that the people who are 100% convinced the election was stolen will suddenly say, "oh okay, I guess it was legitimate after all."?
Not a chance in hell of that happening.

 

[BowlBrother85]

if a finding of no fraud, it's DONE and DONE by auditors picked by AZ Senate Republicans. Game over.
There's no problem here except you've become wed to a biased narrative that can't see the forest for the lone tree.

It's "Game Over" anyway. It was game over on January 20, 2021 at noon. This won't change anything regardless of the finding in Arizona. An audit should be conducted by objective and independent people... Doug Logan doesn't qualify.

 

[NCFisher]

Do you honestly believe that if there is a finding of no fraud that the people who are 100% convinced the election was stolen will suddenly say, "oh okay, I guess it was legitimate after all."?
Not a chance in hell of that happening.

Not remotely, but many will. Those that choose to carry on do so in spite of the facts established by THEIR guys. That's as good as it ever gets, as evidenced by a majority of Dems convinced that Russia changed vote tallies to elect Trump. Or cling to the collusion hoax. See?

You can't make everyone accept facts, but you can use facts as a cudgel against them. If Repubs handpicked guys can't find it, sorry, but they set the terms and it wasn't there. Done.

 

[Vol737]

If ANY other person took to the streets and declared our democratic election process to be a sham and called on his thousands of adoring supporters to march to the capitol, and then they did, resulting in 5 dead, he/she would be arrested no doubt and seen as a violent revolutionary

Please list how those five died. AB was unarmed and shot by an officer. List the others, cause of death and place of death. People need to stop acting as if this was some shoot out by armed insurgents. It was a stupid, poorly thought out stunt by a small group of unarmed dolts that ended up like the dog that caught the bumper of a car. They’re going to prison. Where did Trump say “storm the Capitol”? I can show you where Maxine said to harass and intimidate Republican lawmakers and cabinet members though. Which case would you rather try? Trump deserves a lot of what he gets, but this narrative is tired, stupid and off the mark. It’s sensationalism pushed by MSM because they go to extremes every chance they get.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It seems a lot of people are unfamiliar - or unconcerned - with the necessarily high bar set by SCOTUS in order to protect speech but not not speech inciting violence.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order to lose First Amendment protection as incitement, speech must be “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.”

In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court defined true threats as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” The Court clarified that the speaker “need not actually intend to carry out the threat.”
Unprotected Speech - FIRE

There is no allowance or provision for anyone, including courts, to insert hidden or assumed motive, as if they may divine the mind of a person or persons, and what they intended in the void of actual incitement of violence. Any less than a legal standard, at least of misdemeanor offense, is purely subjective.

Reivew and offer a thoughtful rebuttal.

Did you even read what I wrote prior to lecturing me? Read my comments again.

 

[NCFisher]

It's "Game Over" anyway. It was game over on January 20, 2021 at noon. This won't change anything regardless of the finding in Arizona. An audit should be conducted by objective and independent people... Doug Logan doesn't qualify.

Since NO ONE thinks Trump is going to be installed as president while Biden is ushered out the back door, that's not the point. Why belabor a point not existing outside your own mind is a mystery.
Reassuring Americans elections are secure and representative, is the point. In spite of a host of banana republic machinations by the left breaking those laws; a tall order, now.

 

[Tastylicks]

Please list how those five died. AB was unarmed and shot by an officer. List the others, cause of death and place of death. People need to stop acting as if this was some shoot out by armed insurgents. It was a stupid, poorly thought out stunt by a small group of unarmed dolts that ended up like the dog that caught the bumper of a car. They’re going to prison. Where did Trump say “storm the Capitol”? I can show you where Maxine said to harass and intimidate Republican lawmakers and cabinet members though. Which case would you rather try? Trump deserves a lot of what he gets, but this narrative is tired, stupid and off the mark. It’s sensationalism pushed by MSM because they go to extremes every chance they get.

so much for 'blue lives matter' ....

 

[NCFisher]

Did you even read what I wrote prior to lecturing me? Read my comments again.

Yes, I did. The gist of it being that you think Trump somewhat culpable even if not criminally so.

I replied that without criminality, it's subjective - and Ill add, biased - conjecture. What I did not do, was "shift blame"; I assign blame directly to those who participated in the riot absent an incitement by Trump.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Yes, I did. The gist of it being that you think Trump somewhat culpable even if not criminally so.

I replied that without criminality, it's subjective - and Ill add, biased - conjecture. What I did not do, was "shift blame"; I assign blame directly to those who participated in the riot absent an incitement by Trump.

You called them marxists which is a buzz word used without meaning by the Trump cult on this site when referring to the left.

If you can watch the speeches by Donnie Jr and Sr. and tell me they were not firing up the crowd and then sending them to the Capitol knowing full well it was not going to be a pretty scene, I'd say you're willfully blind. Couple that with Trump's lack of response to the precarious situation is also telling. As is his first public response three hours after it all began with the tweet of "Go home. We love you. You're very special."

Several hours later... "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

So, yes he bears some culpability though it may not rise to the level of criminality.