Lawsuit Against Maricopa County Elections

 

See this Xeet about a lawsuit filed against Maricopa County elections.

This suit alleges a series of actions by the Maricopa County Elections officials that shows a systematic disregard for State elections laws. Of course, a suit alleges a lot usually and it remains to be proven in court. Still, one aspect of this Xeetstorm is that it points out that multiple times the actions of the County elections officials caused discrepancies that exceeded the margin of victory in multiple races.

The most two most troubling allegations, to me, are that chain of custody was ignored, and that audit tracking of ballots versus check-ins was ignored.  Those two issues, in a nutshell, undermine the foundation of election integrity. Absent those controls, it doesn’t matter if any fraud occurs, it’s impossible to know the outcome of an election is valid. If the allegations in this case are shown to be true, then there must be severe consequences. I’ve no idea if they will be shown to be true, but even if they are, I expect no serious consequences as a result, and further I suspect little to no reporting on the outcome should the plaintiffs win.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 154 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: What consequences does the law even call for? Probably none. And that would also be assuming that particular parties at fault could be identified.

    C’mon. You should be ecstatic. Kari Lake is going to court! All of these allegations are going to be heard! Hurray!

    Never mind the fact that she and her lawyers are whining about it and that they have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to dismiss (that was 2 days ago.)

    Trump and Lake have been yelling fraud for four years now and given the opportunity to present their evidence in open court all they want to do is turn tail and run. Why is that?

    Could it be that they have no evidence? That the allegations are worth more to them unproven than presenting their facts in court?

    You keep making these allegations and when someone like me asks you for proof you fail to provide any.

    Your supporting someone who is being backed by Democrats in the Republican primary. Are you sure your a Republican anymore?

    Im an elections expert. The 2020 election couldnt be certified by your countries state department. I have more confidence in a Russian election than your’s

    I have interviewed multiple Americans on LoC who point out the systematic corruption of the US election system. Are the like or Richard Easton, St Augustine and Mark Lardas all frauds?

     

    Remember, EJ is a professional. He has years of experience in broadcasting and now works for Conservatism, Inc. in America. What do you have, Dave? You just have working in party politics, directly, for years! It’s not like you know MPs or anything! Let’s be honest, everyone you talk with is just a cultist captured by Trump and therefore to be ignored!

    Really, at the end of the day, how dare you question EJ Hill’s expertise and challenge it with your own!

    This is what is called and “argument from authority.”  It doesn’t hold much water compared to actually discussing facts and using logic.

    • #61
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: What consequences does the law even call for? Probably none. And that would also be assuming that particular parties at fault could be identified.

    C’mon. You should be ecstatic. Kari Lake is going to court! All of these allegations are going to be heard! Hurray!

    Never mind the fact that she and her lawyers are whining about it and that they have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to dismiss (that was 2 days ago.)

    Trump and Lake have been yelling fraud for four years now and given the opportunity to present their evidence in open court all they want to do is turn tail and run. Why is that?

    Could it be that they have no evidence? That the allegations are worth more to them unproven than presenting their facts in court?

    You keep making these allegations and when someone like me asks you for proof you fail to provide any.

    Your supporting someone who is being backed by Democrats in the Republican primary. Are you sure your a Republican anymore?

    Im an elections expert. The 2020 election couldnt be certified by your countries state department. I have more confidence in a Russian election than your’s

    I have interviewed multiple Americans on LoC who point out the systematic corruption of the US election system. Are the like or Richard Easton, St Augustine and Mark Lardas all frauds?

     

    Remember, EJ is a professional. He has years of experience in broadcasting and now works for Conservatism, Inc. in America. What do you have, Dave? You just have working in party politics, directly, for years! It’s not like you know MPs or anything! Let’s be honest, everyone you talk with is just a cultist captured by Trump and therefore to be ignored!

    Really, at the end of the day, how dare you question EJ Hill’s expertise and challenge it with your own!

    This is what is called and “argument from authority.” It doesn’t hold much water compared to actually discussing facts and using logic.

    Actually, that was “mocking someone for acting like a know-it-all”. It has little to do with facts and everything to do with making fun of someone. 

     

    • #62
  3. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    ToryWarWriter: The sex life? That prosecutor gave her boy friend 1.2 million dollar salary, ten times what the other prosecutors on the case made and their (sic) is a tape where they are accused of misappropriating federal funds for personal use.


    Good god man. Think bef0re you post. You undermine your own credibility with each time you type.

    Let’s talk credibility here. As a point of law, what exactly does this have to do with case against Trump?  Whatever Willis’ sexlife and mismanagement of her office says, none of it points to prosecutorial misconduct in the case itself. There are no accusations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, lack of disclosure of exculpatory evidence or anything else germane to the legal case.

    Now, you can argue the case itself is flimsy and you can argue that charges should have never been brought in the first place and that’s totally valid. To argue that her actions constitutes a “get out of jail free” card is ridiculous.

    But it is the Trumpian way, isn’t it? The legal arguments are always subordinate to the personal attacks. Attack the judges, attack the clerks, attack the prosecutors. Trump and his supporters throw everything and the kitchen sink at these cases except one thing: hard “irrefutable”evidence that the election was stolen. And every single time they afforded the opportunity to produce it, it never materializes. Why is that?

    • #63
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I love the need to (sic) in quoteing someone else. Its so qute! Not at all trying to make someone else look bad by pointing oute speling mistakes. 

    In fact it sort of seems to be the way of Trump. I mean, the personal attack side of it. 

    That is funny! 

    • #64
  5. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bryan G. Stephens: Nothing! Elections are clean! Show us Proof! Just because it is clearly really, really, easy to cheat, unless you have a smoking gun and signed confession, nothing to see here!

    The burden is always on the accuser. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

    Would you have it any other way? 

     

    • #65
  6. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bryan G. Stephens: I love the need to (sic) in quoteing someone else. It’s so qute! Not at all trying to make someone else look bad by pointing oute speling mistakes.

    In fact it sort of seems to be the way of Trump. I mean, the personal attack side of it.

    That is funny!

    I agree. But then I didn’t play the “Shut up because I’m an expert” card. I merely returned the favor by employing my expertise as a trained journalist.

    • #66
  7. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    EJHill (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter: The sex life? That prosecutor gave her boy friend 1.2 million dollar salary, ten times what the other prosecutors on the case made and their (sic) is a tape where they are accused of misappropriating federal funds for personal use.


    Good god man. Think bef0re you post. You undermine your own credibility with each time you type.

    Let’s talk credibility here. As a point of law, what exactly does this have to do with case against Trump? Whatever Willis’ sexlife and mismanagement of her office says, none of it points to prosecutorial misconduct in the case itself. There are no accusations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, lack of disclosure of exculpatory evidence or anything else germane to the legal case.

    Now, you can argue the case itself is flimsy and you can argue that charges should have never been brought in the first place and that’s totally valid. To argue that her actions constitutes a “get out of jail free” card is ridiculous.

    But it is the Trumpian way, isn’t it? The legal arguments are always subordinate to the personal attacks. Attack the judges, attack the clerks, attack the prosecutors. Trump and his supporters throw everything and the kitchen sink at these cases except one thing: hard “irrefutable”evidence that the election was stolen. And every single time they afforded the opportunity to produce it, it never materializes. Why is that?

    Because we are adapting to the Alinsky methodologies. As Harry Reid once noted when caught doing that, his glib comment was “It worked”.

    Obviously operating by the Marquess of Queensberry rules is not winning are they?

    • #67
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter: The sex life? That prosecutor gave her boy friend 1.2 million dollar salary, ten times what the other prosecutors on the case made and their (sic) is a tape where they are accused of misappropriating federal funds for personal use.


    Good god man. Think bef0re you post. You undermine your own credibility with each time you type.

    Let’s talk credibility here. As a point of law, what exactly does this have to do with case against Trump? Whatever Willis’ sexlife and mismanagement of her office says, none of it points to prosecutorial misconduct in the case itself. There are no accusations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, lack of disclosure of exculpatory evidence or anything else germane to the legal case.

    Now, you can argue the case itself is flimsy and you can argue that charges should have never been brought in the first place and that’s totally valid. To argue that her actions constitutes a “get out of jail free” card is ridiculous.

    But it is the Trumpian way, isn’t it? The legal arguments are always subordinate to the personal attacks. Attack the judges, attack the clerks, attack the prosecutors. Trump and his supporters throw everything and the kitchen sink at these cases except one thing: hard “irrefutable”evidence that the election was stolen. And every single time they afforded the opportunity to produce it, it never materializes. Why is that?

    The ‘election was stolen’ and ‘criminal charges against Trump’ are two separate issues you’ve mixed here. That doesn’t work well for me. And when did ‘personal integrity’ not become a consideration when evaluating performance of any Bar approved legal professional? I mean in the pretend world, at least.

    • #68
  9. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Yes, and that is connected to the pipe bombs…………………  This is so silly that it shouldn’t have to be pointed out.

    Someone in Washington encouraged the former Arizona Republican Party Chairman to offer a Trump supporting viable candidate for the Arizona Senate Republican nomination a buy-out from that contest the revealing of which caused him to resign that position. 

    Someone in Washington controls the act of inhibiting any open investigation of the ‘Jan6 pipe-bombs’ event.

    I don’t even think these two things come from people in the same political realm but I do see both as ‘organized’ anti-Trump maneuvers and Trump is a likely Presidential nominee.

    Please explain the specifics of the silliness you are seeing. Have I fabricated what I have said?

    • #69
  10. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: The ‘election was stolen’ and ‘criminal charges against Trump’ are two separate issues you’ve mixed here. That doesn’t work well for me.

    Bob Thompson: I don’t even think these two things come from people in the same political realm but I do see both as ‘organized’ anti-Trump maneuvers and Trump is a likely Presidential nominee.

    When you don’t like the fact that Trumpian liars prefer the conflict to the production of truth, “That doesn’t work well for me.”

    When you tie pipe bombs in DC and ballot boxes in Phoenix together, that’s all part of a giant mosaic that bolsters your argument. Well, maybe that doesn’t work well for many of us, either.

    • #70
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: What consequences does the law even call for? Probably none. And that would also be assuming that particular parties at fault could be identified.

    C’mon. You should be ecstatic. Kari Lake is going to court! All of these allegations are going to be heard! Hurray!

    Never mind the fact that she and her lawyers are whining about it and that they have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to dismiss (that was 2 days ago.)

    Trump and Lake have been yelling fraud for four years now and given the opportunity to present their evidence in open court all they want to do is turn tail and run. Why is that?

    Could it be that they have no evidence? That the allegations are worth more to them unproven than presenting their facts in court?

    I never thought there was a definitive answer to this question:

    Did any of those Dominion voting machines allow access to the internet?

    Was that question answered?

    The key to most if not all of this, as I think StA mentioned in another recent post, is that it’s difficult or impossible to “prove” specific election problems especially if it’s expected to show exactly who or what benefited from it. That’s why it’s up to the election officials etc to show that THEY followed all the applicable laws regarding chain of custody, etc. And if it can be shown that they didn’t, that’s all that is required to invalidate an election.

    Especially if it can be shown that the number of votes affected exceeds the supposed “margin of victory.”

    Thats how it works in every other Country on the planet. But you know America is the exceptional nation.

    The easiest and most real-world practical solution I can see now is to just ignore the counts from precincts, etc – perhaps even entire states if necessary – where the rules aren’t followed.   Like not admitting evidence in courts that was obtained illegally, it removes the incentive for doing so.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: What consequences does the law even call for? Probably none. And that would also be assuming that particular parties at fault could be identified.

    C’mon. You should be ecstatic. Kari Lake is going to court! All of these allegations are going to be heard! Hurray!

    Never mind the fact that she and her lawyers are whining about it and that they have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to dismiss (that was 2 days ago.)

    Trump and Lake have been yelling fraud for four years now and given the opportunity to present their evidence in open court all they want to do is turn tail and run. Why is that?

    Could it be that they have no evidence? That the allegations are worth more to them unproven than presenting their facts in court?

    You keep making these allegations and when someone like me asks you for proof you fail to provide any.

    It is incumbent upon the person making the claim of fraud to provide evidence, not for others to disprove it. There is an old saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Not always/entirely, such as in court cases and other places where “chain of custody” is required.  Nobody is required to prove that evidence was tampered with.  If chain of custody etc was not maintained as required by law, then the POSSIBILITY of tampering is enough.

     

    Your supporting someone who is being backed by Democrats in the Republican primary. Are you sure your a Republican anymore?

    Im an elections expert. The 2020 election couldnt be certified by your countries state department. I have more confidence in a Russian election than your’s

    The State Department has nothing to do with Presidential Elections or any other elections. To use one of our most useless government agencies as an arbiter is silly, and elevating Russian elections over America’s is even sillier.

    The point, which anyone paying attention should know by now, is that the State Department “monitoring” of elections conducted in other countries would not accept what happens HERE.  That’s a pretty strong indictment unless you just want to whistle past the graveyard or something.

    • #72
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

     

    No, what I am saying is that people have been caterwauling about states stopping the presentation in court of “proof” on standing, and when given the opportunity to go to court both Trump and Lake do everything humanly imaginable to avoid it.

    Instead of presenting his “irrefutable” proof of fraud in Georgia as filing with court Trump and Co. are going after the sex life of the prosecutor. Instead of welcoming a court date in Arizona, Kari Lake is screaming about “hyperbole.”

    Make up your mind. Do you you want their “proof” submitted for adjudication or do you just want the accusations because you find them politically expedient ?

     

     

    The sex life? That prosecutor gave her boy friend 1.2 million dollar salary, ten times what the other prosecutors on the case made and their is a tape where they are accused of misappropriating federal funds for personal use.

    Good god man. Think bef0re you post. You undermine your own credibility with each time you type.

    I agree that it is wholly proper to being up the corruption charges against Prosecutor Fani Willis, but the amount she paid her boyfriend was more like $654,000.00, not $1.2 Million. When you accuse others of not providing evidence, you better make sure your own facts are correct, first.

     

    If that’s per year, and he’s been on the case for 2 years (he was “hired” Nov 2021), that could easily be $1.3 Million.

    • #73
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    The question was answered again more forcefully when Dominion sued Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Pillow Guy Mike Lindell for claiming that the machines did not work or purposely threw the election. Fox settled for 3/4ths of a Billion Dollars, Mike Lindell lost his $5 Million challenge to “anybody who could prove him wrong” and is still awaiting trial against Dominion, Sidney Powell completely fell apart and said her claims were not to be taken literally, and I don’t know the status of Giuliani.

    A lot of words here still no answer to my question. Was it ever demonstrably proven that none of the Dominion voting machines used in election tabulating votes in all election jurisdictions had any online capability? Where is the answer to that question? A settlement by Fox certainly does not provide it unless it was specifically released as proving this fact.

    The reason I’m adamant on this point is I was astounded when the claim was raised. How did it get traction, it is such an absurd capability to be even considered?

    If these machines can have the software updated from an online source, that answers my question and I think I heard that this happened in Maricopa County.

    You can take it as a given that Fox had those voting machines analyzed to death. That would have been done in private using technicians and lawyers and everything they could have thrown at the target. They are under no obligation to reveal their own investigations to the public, as any defendant in a law suit is under no obligation, and to admit they were so wrong would be highly embarrassing. There are $787 Million worth of reasons to believe the machines have been truly vetted. Why else would Fox give-in to nearly a billion dollars of extortion and fire their most popular pundit?

    From what I’ve encountered over time, Maricopa County has been so aggressively against being checked on, that I wouldn’t be surprised if they only let Fox examine a few machines, and those machines may have been “wiped” in advance so they were no longer running whatever software they had on election day, etc, etc.  We also know that many election log files and other things have “gone missing”…  And if Fox had pointed out any of that, you would have just said they were “whining.”

    • #74
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens: Nothing! Elections are clean! Show us Proof! Just because it is clearly really, really, easy to cheat, unless you have a smoking gun and signed confession, nothing to see here!

    The burden is always on the accuser. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

    Would you have it any other way?

    Someone needs to look up “chain of custody” again.  Or maybe for the first time.

    Although, it’s also possible to see this as “the burden of proof” IS on the “accuser,” the “accuser” in this situation being the “accusation” that FJB won in 2020.  To support that burden of proof, they have to show that the evidence – the votes, ballots, whatever – had maintained chain of custody etc.  If they fail that, then their “accusation” that FJB “won” fails.

    • #75
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    kedavis (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: What consequences does the law even call for? Probably none. And that would also be assuming that particular parties at fault could be identified.

    C’mon. You should be ecstatic. Kari Lake is going to court! All of these allegations are going to be heard! Hurray!

    Never mind the fact that she and her lawyers are whining about it and that they have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to dismiss (that was 2 days ago.)

    Trump and Lake have been yelling fraud for four years now and given the opportunity to present their evidence in open court all they want to do is turn tail and run. Why is that?

    Could it be that they have no evidence? That the allegations are worth more to them unproven than presenting their facts in court?

    I never thought there was a definitive answer to this question:

    Did any of those Dominion voting machines allow access to the internet?

    Was that question answered?

    The key to most if not all of this, as I think StA mentioned in another recent post, is that it’s difficult or impossible to “prove” specific election problems especially if it’s expected to show exactly who or what benefited from it. That’s why it’s up to the election officials etc to show that THEY followed all the applicable laws regarding chain of custody, etc. And if it can be shown that they didn’t, that’s all that is required to invalidate an election.

    Especially if it can be shown that the number of votes affected exceeds the supposed “margin of victory.”

    Thats how it works in every other Country on the planet. But you know America is the exceptional nation.

    The easiest and most real-world practical solution I can see now is to just ignore the counts from precincts, etc – perhaps even entire states if necessary – where the rules aren’t followed. Like not admitting evidence in courts that was obtained illegally, it removes the incentive for doing so.

    I know you have heard me say this before. If state governments don’t want to do all the work necessary  to assure election integrity in voting, (we know the biggest problems are in the big cities), the State Legislatures should revert the certification of EC Electors to themselves. 

    • #76
  17. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    kedavis: Someone needs to look up “chain of custody” again.  Or maybe for the first time.

    Although, it’s also possible to see this as “the burden of proof” IS on the “accuser,” the “accuser” in this situation being the “accusation” that FJB won in 2020.  To support that burden of proof, they have to show that the evidence – the votes, ballots, whatever – had maintained chain of custody etc.  If they fail that, then their “accusation” that FJB “won” fails.

    That is the most twisted piece of illogic ever produced on this subject. You and dozens of others are accusing government officials of ballot stuffing, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and racketeering and insist that the burden of proof lies with those accused to prove themselves innocent.

    This is what Donald Trump has done to you? You have not only trashed the American Constitution, you are willing to trash our English Common Law traditions all the way back to Magna Carta.

    Holy Mother Mary, pray for us. 

    • #77
  18. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: Someone needs to look up “chain of custody” again. Or maybe for the first time.

    Although, it’s also possible to see this as “the burden of proof” IS on the “accuser,” the “accuser” in this situation being the “accusation” that FJB won in 2020. To support that burden of proof, they have to show that the evidence – the votes, ballots, whatever – had maintained chain of custody etc. If they fail that, then their “accusation” that FJB “won” fails.

    That is the most twisted piece of illogic ever produced on this subject. You and dozens of others are accusing government officials of ballot stuffing, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and racketeering and insist that the burden of proof lies with those accused to prove themselves innocent.

    This is what Donald Trump has done to you? You have not only trashed the American Constitution, you are willing to trash our English Common Law traditions all the way back to Magna Carta.

    Holy Mother Mary, pray for us.

    I don’t think you should go to this kind of conclusion in response to what was presented about ‘chain of custody’. Do election officials have a responsibility respect to chain of custody for ballots? Was it followed? If not, what is the appropriate remedial action?

    Those are my questions.

    • #78
  19. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: I don’t think you should go to this kind of conclusion in response to what was presented about ‘chain of custody’. Do election officials have a responsibility respect to chain of custody for ballots? Was it followed? If not, what is the appropriate remedial action?

    Those are my questions.

    Get real. Davis tried to turn around the word “accusation” in a disingenuous manner. And you know it.

    And which “chain of custody” complaint are you talking about? What are you questioning? You’ve had three years since 2020 and more than a year since 2022 to run down these questions. What answers did you get? What proof has Trump and Lake offered that the chain of custody was broken anywhere?

    All you do is throw crap up against a wall and hope something sticks. Well, the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Why haven’t you nailed this down?

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: Someone needs to look up “chain of custody” again. Or maybe for the first time.

    Although, it’s also possible to see this as “the burden of proof” IS on the “accuser,” the “accuser” in this situation being the “accusation” that FJB won in 2020. To support that burden of proof, they have to show that the evidence – the votes, ballots, whatever – had maintained chain of custody etc. If they fail that, then their “accusation” that FJB “won” fails.

    That is the most twisted piece of illogic ever produced on this subject. You and dozens of others are accusing government officials of ballot stuffing, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and racketeering and insist that the burden of proof lies with those accused to prove themselves innocent.

    This is what Donald Trump has done to you? You have not only trashed the American Constitution, you are willing to trash our English Common Law traditions all the way back to Magna Carta.

    Holy Mother Mary, pray for us.

    You don’t think that it’s necessary to insure proper chain of custody?  That happens all the time in other situations including court trials.  And it really is up to those responsible to prove that they DID maintain proper chain of custody etc.  Indeed, that’s the basis of chain of custody itself!  Having the documentation, etc.  Proving that they didn’t amounts to “proving a negative.”

    • #80
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: I don’t think you should go to this kind of conclusion in response to what was presented about ‘chain of custody’. Do election officials have a responsibility respect to chain of custody for ballots? Was it followed? If not, what is the appropriate remedial action?

    Those are my questions.

    Get real. Davis tried to turn around the word “accusation” in a disingenuous manner. And you know it.

    And which “chain of custody” complaint are you talking about? What are you questioning? You’ve had three years since 2020 and more than a year since 2022 to run down these questions. What answers did you get? What proof has Trump and Lake offered that the chain of custody was broken anywhere?

    All you do is throw crap up against a wall and hope something sticks. Well, the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Why haven’t you nailed this down?

    There were many reports of ballots found improperly stored in Maricopa County and elsewhere.  That violates chain of custody.  When confronted with that, the Maricopa officials – and probably you too – would claim “Well, so what if the ballot warehouse was unguarded, unlocked, and when security people eventually showed up anyone could have gotten in and done whatever and left in the meantime?  Can you PROVE that anyone messed with those anonymous ballots?”

    THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!!!

    THEY have to prove that the ballots were SECURE!  And they FAILED!

    Do you not know ANYTHING about chain of custody, and how – if chain of custody is not maintained – a defendant can have the case dismissed for THAT ALONE?  They don’t have to prove that the evidence was tampered with!

    • #81
  22. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    kedavis: There were many reports of ballots found improperly stored in Maricopa County and elsewhere.

    “Reports” by whom? By journalists? By election workers? By party observers? Or by the guy who accompanied Ben Bergquam following a white Penske Truck around showing ballot envelopes being delivered to the Runbeck Election Services for photographic preservation? Neither of whom went inside the facility to witness the chain of custody being preserved?

    There are a lot of Bergquams making claims that they cannot back up. And their half-baked exercises in “citizen journalism” wouldn’t hold up in an entry level j-school class. Or a criminal justice 101 class.

    For three years we’ve been playing this game of the Cultural Revolution: unsubstantiated claims of malfeasance followed by the demands from the Red Guards, “Whose side are you on!? If you do not denounce this you are an enemy of the good!”

    When the great heroes of this cause, Donald Trump and Kari Lake are given opportunities to back up their bold claims they never do. And yet, you never question it and wait until the next accusation is lodged or the next baseless lawsuit is filed or the next report that rehashes three years of unproven accusations are tweeted out under a breathless declaration of “Breaking!”

    It’s tiring and it’s antithetical to our American ideals and our legal traditions. 

     

    • #82
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I couldn’t find any videos of reports of the ballot storage/security issues I read about at the time, I may not have hit on the right key words or they might not have been reported on TV stations and then made their way to YouTube.  But I did find a couple other related items.

     

     

    • #83
  24. DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone 🚫 Banned
    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    EJHill (View Comment):

    It’s tiring and it’s antithetical to our American ideals and our legal traditions.

    If it’s so tiring for you, you could, I dunno . . . log off (permanently?) and go read a book?

    • #84
  25. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone : If it’s so tiring for you, you could, I dunno . . . log off (permanently?) and go read a book?

    Because I’m going to fight the destruction of the American Experiment from destructive elements regardless if they come from the Left or they come from the Right.

    I don’t buy that I have to choose one of two destructive forces.

    • #85
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    It’s tiring and it’s antithetical to our American ideals and our legal traditions.

    If it’s so tiring for you, you could, I dunno . . . log off (permanently?) and go read a book?

    Maybe he could at least read this report:

    The Heartland Institute study.

    • #86
  27. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    EJHill (View Comment):

    DrewInLowerOrderAutonomousZone : If it’s so tiring for you, you could, I dunno . . . log off (permanently?) and go read a book?

    Because I’m going to fight the destruction of the American Experiment from destructive elements regardless if they come from the Left or they come from the Right.

    I don’t buy that I have to choose one of two destructive forces.

    And any question that elections in America might be anything other than near perfect has to be fought on the beaches, in the streets, and in the hills. 

    It is possible, you know, to both think Trump lost in 2020 and to worry about how voting works. Why, noted anti-Trumper Kemp signed a law to shore up GA voting integrity. I’ll let him know you are coming for him. 

    • #87
  28. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson: The Heartland Institute study.

    There’s no “there” there. It’s all speculative with no evidence whatsoever. “If we apply our magical mathematical formulas to the returns we get entirely different numbers!”

    No kidding. And if I apply my magical mathematical formulas to these World Series box scores the Arizona Diamondbacks are World’s Champions!

    You’re dealing with articles of faith, not facts. We all laughed at the “walls are closing in” and “we’ve got him now!” coverage of the Trump White House. But now you’re all operating in the same world. Every Stephen Miller lawsuit, every Donald Trump social media post promising “irrefutable evidence,” every bad Dinesh D’Souza movie is “We’ve got the proof now!” And it never really delivers. Meanwhile, Trump keeps destroying the Republican Party without building a winning organization to replace it and we’re all supposed to cheer at the king as he drives down the street in his golden carriage. No thanks.

    • #88
  29. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson: The Heartland Institute study.

    There’s no “there” there. It’s all speculative with no evidence whatsoever. “If we apply our magical mathematical formulas to the returns we get entirely different numbers!”

    No kidding. And if I apply my magical mathematical formulas to these World Series box scores the Arizona Diamondbacks are World’s Champions!

    You’re dealing with articles of faith, not facts. We all laughed at the “walls are closing in” and “we’ve got him now!” coverage of the Trump White House. But now you’re all operating in the same world. Every Stephen Miller lawsuit, every Donald Trump social media post promising “irrefutable evidence,” every bad Dinesh D’Souza movie is “We’ve got the proof now!” And it never really delivers. Meanwhile, Trump keeps destroying the Republican Party without building a winning organization to replace it and we’re all supposed to cheer at the king as he drives down the street in his golden carriage. No thanks.

    Man, I’m waiting to hear your expert opinion on prosecutions for the mishandling of classified documents

    • #89
  30. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bryan G. Stephens: Why, noted anti-Trumper Kemp signed a law to shore up GA voting integrity. I’ll let him know you are coming for him. 

    And he did it without all the histrionics, the unsubstantiated charges and the frivolous lawsuits. And you know who else cleaned up his state’s election problems? Jeb Bush. The RINO, GOPe, Conservative Inc., establishment figure everyone on the new right absolutely despises. 

    Go figure. The two people who have done more for the cause of clean, fair elections in this country are the two people Donald Trump and his acolytes hate the most.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.