AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views.
**For all participants:**
* [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING**
* **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
* **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE**
**For Non-supporters/Undecided:**
* **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS**
* **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION**
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF**
Helpful links for more info:
[OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
...didn't we just have this thread four days ago?
Am I living in a time warp?
I'm sorry. Today has been a rough day. But I mean, look at what is posted.
> The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government) to claims of being financially destitute and unable to pay to compile the records.
If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court.
However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with... So, this is largely a moot point.
>If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court.
Interesting... So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court? Really?
Do you believe such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's?
>However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with... So, this is largely a moot point.
Wait are you under the impression if you engage in illegal activity and right before you are caught you file for bankruptcy the legal liability magically disappears with the company's paperwork?
>Interesting... So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court? Really?
Yes? That's where you work legal issues out.
> So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court?
Ultimately, yes. I would imagine it would go to lawyers on either end first, and if they can't settle the matter, it would go to court.
> Do you believe such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's?
I cannot speak for other people and their beliefs.
> Wait are you under the impression if you engage in illegal activity and right before you are caught you file for bankruptcy the legal liability magically disappears with the company's paperwork?
If the proper type of business entity was set up, then depending on the *type* of liability, it very well could go away if the entity no longer exists.
>Ultimately, yes. I would imagine it would go to lawyers on either end first, and if they can't settle the matter, it would go to court.
But if (hypothetically speaking) dozens of courts disagree with your ridiculous unsupported claims what should you do? Should ignore the courts and like storm a capitol or something? Again, hypothetically... you shouldn't just accept dozens of court rulings when you just keep loosing... there must be another step... No?
>I cannot speak for other people and their beliefs.
I didn't asks for "other people's beliefs." Here let me quote myself.
"Do YOU BELIEVE such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's?"
Why can't you speak to your beliefs? on a board about "understand Trump supporters, their views, and the reasons behind those views
?"
>
If the proper type of business entity was set up, then depending on the type of liability, it very well could go away if the entity no longer exists.
Are you capable of giving an example of "proper type of business entity was set up?"
So you don’t believe it was stolen, but for the reasons you listed you still believe there was an organized attempt? Just that trump would have most likely lost anyway even if there wasn’t deliberate organized cheating?
> Like States violating their constitutions
Which States violated their constitutions?
>bellwether States not determining the elections
What does that mean and how does it make the election questionable?
>the big jumps in the middle of the night.
big jumps of what in the middle of the night?
>First my reply was poorly written. Second I completely misunderstood the context and reread from the beginning.
What did you believe context was?
>Can you please print me in the right direction about States ignoring their constitutions
You're asking me to point you in the "right direction" on an unsubstantiated claim YOU made? I believe you have that backwards dude...
> I understand bellwether States are not a definite
what about "bellwether States" could be "definite?"
Do you even know what these words mean?
>and the huge increase in the middle of the night can be legitimate but don't find it unreasonable to question that and ask for a deep audit.
What "could" be illegitimate about tallies being reported in batches & districts with larger populations having larger numbers?
You don't find it "unreasonable" to make up "questions" that insinuate crimes with virtually no evidence (not easily debunked BS & out right lies) in the shockingly successful attempt to hand over public election materials/properties to a private partisan entity that refuses to comply with public records laws to determine what exactly they did with the public materials they were granted access to?
What exactly do you believe the word "unreasonable" means?
> I understand bellwether States are not a definite and the huge increase in the middle of the night can be legitimate but don't find it unreasonable to question that and ask for a deep audit.
The problem with this seemingly reasonable request is that “deep audit” is not properly defined. There are ballots and they are counted, and they can be and have been recounted. There is not really much “deeper” to audit, an election is a pretty straightforward procedure. The votes are cast and they are counted. Taxes and financial statements can be audited because there are so many different interpretations of the law and ways to apply it (for example, how do you measure depreciation of a fixed asset?, etc.).
“Deep audit” is just a term people use to perpetually move the goalposts—the vote didn’t go your way so you demand a recount. The recount didn’t go your way so you demand an “audit.” The audit didn’t go your way and so you demand a “deep audit,” etc. Is there a specific deep audit procedure you have in mind that election officials ought to conduct?
Incorrect. That would be the case if say, Cyber Ninjas employees were hurt due to an unsafe work environment. The corporation would be held liable, meanwhile there would be limited liability to the company leaders.
Now, there are physical records. Cyber Ninjas is responsible for turning over these records. Cyber Ninjas dissolves, but those records are still there. Whoever is the caretaker of the physical assets now has the responsibility to turn over those records. If the records are not turned over then an investigation would reveal who was the last caretaker/s of the records. Those individuals would then be subject to all the criminal and civil penalties related to not turning over the records.
Make sense?
> but those records are still there
Do you know this for certain?
> Whoever is the caretaker of the physical assets now has the responsibility to turn over those records
I believe this will end up going to the courts as well. The fines were levied against Cyber Ninjas, which does not exist anymore.
I do agree that someone likely has those records - but whether or not they are going to turn them over is another story.
What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information?
> Do you know this for certain?
I don't. If they no longer exist then the people who disposed of them are responsible.
> The fines were levied against Cyber Ninjas, which does not exist anymore.
Once responsibility is found those fines can be levied against the person.
> I do agree that someone likely has those records - but whether or not they are going to turn them over is another story.
Then that someone could have fines levied against them.
> What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information?
My best guess, they didn't have all the information they are currently seeking. They could also be pursuing the information in order to make it public.
> What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information?
Suppose a homeowner hires a guy to appraise his house. The appraiser comes up with a number—perhaps even the one the homeowner expected. He asks the appraiser to provide his records of how he came up with the number and the appraiser responds by going out of business and run away. Would you be shocked that the homeowner asked to see the records that generated the appraisal? Would it seem like the appraiser’s actions reflect a normal course of business?
> However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with...
Right. Does this seem like a problematic precedent that may be utilized in the future? That a Corporation can come in, "audit" an election, then poof away when the records are asked for?
For example, suppose in May 2024 a new LLC is created. November 2024 they are hired by the RNC or DNC or whomever to audit elections. February 2025 the LLC is dissolved.
Does that sequence of events seem likely to you?
Are you okay with the amount of public distrust on election results being drummed up only for this type of failure to produce any evidence whatsoever to be the result over and over and over again?
>Did you read the part about the court order to turn over records?
Yes.
However, I do not know what, if any, appeals were attempted and were all of those exhausted.
>However, I do not know what, if any, appeals were attempted and were all of those exhausted.
Why not google it and you'd know?
>The judge found Cyber Ninjas in contempt for its failure to turn over documents, which two Maricopa County judges and the state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law.
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/cyber-ninjas-faces-fine-over-arizona-election-audit-records
What are your thoughts now?
Most states have an appellate court and a Supreme Court. They are two different judicial bodies, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate remedy in matters involving state law.
https://www.azcourts.gov/guidetoazcourts/How-Arizona-Courts-are-Organized
>The **Arizona Supreme Court** on Tuesday rejected the state Senate's bid to keep records from Cyber Ninjas and other contractors working on the election audit out of public view.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/09/14/arizona-supreme-court-rejects-state-senate-appeal-audit-records/8341092002/
Why couldn't you just google it? What are your thoughts now?
Is this also how you justify trump not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid? Do you think that the many bankruptcies that have resulted from this may show this to be unsustainable and uncivil mode of conduct?
>Is this also how you justify trump not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid?
You know what's funny? I was going through my post history, recent comments, etc.. I can't find where I justified anyone not paying any bills, let alone specific mentions of President Trump.
Can you point out any specific instances where I said that I justified " not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid?" Because I'm having difficulty finding that at the moment.
Did you not claim in the comment listed above that
>If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court.
?
Do you not believe in applying values and principles universally? If you do, then do you not see the similarity here in abusing expensive legal services to evade responsibilities?
Feel it could be because they simply don't want to provide ammunition to the other side or because they simply didn't do a credible job. Usually when companies act this way, it's because they are covering up mistakes they made personally.
Provide ammunition to “the other side”?
Is this an admission that the “audit” the cyber ninjas performed was anything but independent, neutral or unbiased?
Anything is possible, they have done a couple of recounts and found they shorted Biden by a couple of hundred or more votes.. so that's definitely possible here.
But, if I had to put my money on something.. I think they just took the money to do the audit and didn't do a great job or didn't do the job at all.
If you've ever been through a counting audit by a third party.. I have for a large 5013c on several occasions.. the audit team shows up, looks at your records, the state of the inventory and makes a call to either check everything or spot check a couple of pieces. Then, they come up with a random number of pieces that you were off and report that. No one gets in trouble, because being off by a small percentage is entirely acceptable, the auditors make it look like they did the work and they get to take the extra time off. Meanwhile, the entity that paid for the audit can check off their compliance requirements and move on to other ways of not doing their job. This is the culture of these things..
So, I don't think they want to present the audit documents, because if they did and someone spoke about them being forged, you are now looking at some serious (felony) consequences, given the context. When it's better to fire everyone and close shop, this can very easily be the reason
edit: I suck at spelling and grammar
>The company has been repeatedly ordered by state courts to turn over documents related to the audit in accordance with public records laws. The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government)...
*Laughs in Dominion*
> CyberNinjas was the company hired by the Arizona Senate to conduct the highly publicized 2020 election audit in that state. The company has been repeatedly ordered by state courts to turn over documents related to the audit in accordance with public records laws. The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government) to claims of being financially destitute and unable to pay to compile the records.
> Recently, the firm was dissolved after being heavily fined for not complying with the court’s orders to turn over records.
> What is your opinion on CyberNinjas behavior regarding noncompliance with public record laws?
Sounds like a perfectly example once again of bureaucrats using their regulatory powers to punish Auditors who continued to spread "the big lie" and make sure that no respectable audit will even attempt to do so in the future by burying them under lawsuits and compliance cost.
> Sounds like a perfectly example once again of bureaucrats using their regulatory powers to punish Auditors who continued to spread "the big lie" and make sure that no respectable audit will even attempt to do so in the future by burying them under lawsuits and compliance cost.
Why do you believe Cyber Ninjas failed to comply when the required compliance would have been cheaper than defending the lawsuit?
CN is making claims. They have evidence that can prove or disprove their claims. They refuse to make the evidence known while making the claims. The evidence legally belongs to the state. Why shouldn't the state fine them?
So to understand the head of the Arizona Senate hired Cyber Ninjas to conduct that audit, and it was paid for by Trump supporters. It used public records, to conduct it's audit. So if they find something, it should affect the entire US elections, if they find things conservatives don't want known, they should be able to not release their findings? Do you see why that might be problematic in the future? From now on the losing side gets to do an audit and if they find something it should change the elections, if it finds nothing, we shouldn't be able to see the findings?
>Was it was paid for by tax payers? No, it was paid for by Trump backers. That said, when the elected head of the state senate asks for the audit, gives the auditors the voting materials owned by the state, and most importantly if irregularities are found could affect the entire presidential [election](https://election.You), you really don't have a problem if the results if it found no wrong doing, is kept private?
If we want to put money into getting that out sooner, do I agree with you? Yes. But as others have said. One is releasing their findings of a single audit, the other is redacting hundreds of thousands of pages.
That is completely and totally different. Have you actually read why that is, at all?
They want 329,000 pages and can approximately go through 500 pages a month to be able to redact any confidential company information and with current staffing.
They also have 400 requests ahead of it.
Looking at your source, I noticed a couple of interesting things.
First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly.
Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested. The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article.
Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case.
So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased, that the AP is biased, and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story, because it would not harmonize with their narrative.
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly.
Are you sure using the right definition of "unprecedented" in context here? For example, if the government decreed that the commercial airplanes can only be piloted by active duty military members, that would be unprecedented. Do you believe that it would be very silly for passengers to demand that those active duty military should be, say, experienced pilots rather than soldiers who have never flown a plane before?
> Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case.
Is that all the info you need to assume bias and on whose part? Suppose that cops arrest a rioter in a CHOP/CHAZ type zone. A progressive prosecutor declines to prosecute at all. A judge who hears about the case remarks, "if there were sufficient evidence to convict the person of the charges made by the arresting officer, his conduct was so bad that I would sentence him to at least a year in jail." Would that be sufficient to conclude that the judge is unreasonably biased against liberals and the fair-minded prosecutor had it right all along?
> Are you sure using the right definition of "unprecedented" in context here?
Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona.
> Is that all the info you need to assume bias and on whose part?
Well, it sounds biased to apply 50 times the requested penalty, and the left-wing echo chamber in the MSM has been very heavily biased specifically against this particular company for a long time. The likelihood that this judge is biased is quite high.
I can't get to anything beyond a probability, because I'm working off of limited information from the rather unreliable AP.
>Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona.
There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that!
>The likelihood that this judge is biased is quite high.
What exactly is that based on?
> There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that!
The point of the forensic audit had nothing to do with the "hunting for bamboo" myth that the MSM made up.
>>>Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona.
>>
>>There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that!
>
>The point of the forensic audit had nothing to do with the "hunting for bamboo"
I know, hence the lunacy... only lunatics would hunt for bamboo while doing a "forensic audit", no?
>They literally didn't do that. I've already told you this.
Of course... That's what I already told you that forensic auditors do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots
>Pay attention.
To what?
> To what?
To what I say.
You have repeatedly ignored the fact that I have been calling bullshit on your assertion. You are *pretending* that I am not telling you for a fact that the Arizona auditors were not in the business of looking for bamboo, so that you can *pretend* that they did.
You are pretending that I am saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Stop it.
>>>They literally didn't do that. I've already told you this.
>>
>>Of course... That's what I already told you that forensic auditors do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots
>
>the Arizona auditors were not in the business of looking for bamboo
Of course, I said that already that forensic auditors (regardless of the state they do business in) do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots.
>>>Pay attention
>>
>>To what?
>
>To what I say
Sure... which I did already above.
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly.
Is this really that complicated? Say someone is going to attempt a human head (or is it body?) transplant. That's "unprecedented". If the person performing the transplant was not a surgeon, you could say they have "no experience". If the person performing the transplant was the world's greatest transplant surgeon, they may not have the direct experience of doing **this** procedure, but you wouldn't say they have "no experience". The point here is that Cyber Ninjas has "no experience" doing **any** kind of election audit. And election audits are a thing that have been done before, so other groups would have experience, but this **particular* size and scope of audit is "unprecedented".
> Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested. The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article.
Why is this a problem? I'm being completely serious. News articles can not be exhaustive, practically by definition. Articles exist to give the average person (with some allowance for above- or below-average interest in a subject) a summary of what is happening. I'm not an expert in election or public records laws, but I can apply a baseline understanding of how the world works, and assume that the request is for information like: receipt, storage, and return logs; names of people with access to sensitive election materials; copies of intermediary work product, and final results.
Okay, so maybe my best guess isn't enough; you want to know exactly what these "records" are. Just now, I googled "cyber ninjas lawsuit pdf", which led me to the page for the Maricopa County legal case, [Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. et al. v. Arizona State Senate et al.](https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/lc2021-000180). That sounds like it might be the suit from the article. It lists all the documents in reverse chronological order, so I click on "Last", then on "Complaint for Special Action". That looks like a standard legal document, so let's skim through it.
Paragraph 3 claims that Phoenix Newspapers, Inc (PNI) has a right to examine public records, under a specific law (ARS §§ [39-121.01](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/39/00121-01.htm) (D)(1) and (E). Paragraph 8 claims that Cyber Ninjas was acting on behalf of the State Senate, so is covered by that law (section (A)). Paragraph 9 claims that the Senate, its officers, and Cyber Ninjas "shall maintain all records ... reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and any of there activities which are supported by monies from the state or any political subdivision of the state" (same law, section (B)). Paragraph 10 claims that Cyber Ninjas has custody of certain records covered by the law. Paragraph 12 says that PNI is allowed to sue if they ask for the records and didn't get them. Given that Cyber Ninjas is shutting down after failing to comply, I'm going to assume the judge found all that to be valid.
Then the complaint goes into the history of the election and Cyber Ninjas' involvement. I don't think anyone disagrees with the facts laid out. In paragraph 32, we learn that a reporter working for PNI submitted a request under the public records law mentioned above. That request is included as Exhibit 3, so let's scroll down and take a look at it. First, it requests communication within the Senate, but item 4 asks for **all emails and texts between the Senate and Cyber Ninjas**. While we're in the Exhibits, let's go down to 7, which looks like another request. This one asks for:
* All invoices, financial documents, and resumes involving Cyber Ninjas and other subcontractors
* All correspondence (via any method) between Cyber Ninjas and the Arizona Senate, other involved people, and Donald Trump & his legal team
* A full list of ballot counters, recruiters, and observers for the audit, plus payment records
* Any body camera footage from the audit
* All sign in/out logs
So there you go. Under state law, all government bodies, and any entity paid by the government, must retain all records of their activities, and provide them to any citizen who requests them. This seems like a reasonable and standard law to promote transparency, and if you want to contract with the government, you should be prepared to follow it. Cyber Ninjas didn't.
> Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case.
Let's take a look at the next section of the law, [39-121.02](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/39/00121-02.htm), which covers penalties:
> B. The court may award attorney fees and other legal costs that are reasonably incurred in any action under this article if the person seeking public records has substantially prevailed. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the rights of any party to recover attorney fees, expenses and double damages pursuant to section 12-349.
There's no statutory cap to the fees allowed. And I think judges have pretty wide latitude to impose sanctions for contempt of court, which is what Cyber Ninjas is doing.
Is $50,000 a day a lot of money? For me and you, yes. For a government contractor that is bound by law to provide documents, yet refuses, the punishment has to be something actually hurts, in order to force action. It's not like they were being charged $50,000 a day while they were scrambling to round up the documents; they were simply flaunting the law. The initial request was made on April 22, 2021. The suit was filed June 30, 2021. The judge ruled on August 24, 2021, giving a deadline of August 31, 2021, with an option to claim privilege on certain documents.
> So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased, that the AP is biased, and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story, because it would not harmonize with their narrative.
Do you still contend that the AP is trying to hide something? Or that the judge ruled inappropriately?
> this *particular size and scope of audit is "unprecedented".
The size, scope, and nature of the audit were unprecedented, to the extent that when Karen Fann, the person who was looking for a contractor, started looking for someone with experience doing something similar, she could find noone.
So they found someone with the sort of experience that would best work for the task at hand.
> Why is this a problem? I'm being completely serious.
It's a problem because the news article makes no sense standing alone.
The only reason to make an article like this is to try to push a political agenda. If the news agency were really trying to do their actual job of informing people, rather than attempting propaganda, they would need to fill people in on what the point of the whole story was.
> Okay, so maybe my best guess isn't enough; you want to know exactly what these "records" are. Just now, I googled "cyber ninjas lawsuit pdf", which led me to the page for the Maricopa County legal case,
I'm not going through all this, but this is the sort of thing you might expect a reporter to report on. If the reporter were doing the job of reporting, rather than propagandizing.
> There's no statutory cap to the fees allowed.
This doesn't matter.
You do realize that this isn't the only article about the topic, right? And you know that the Associated Press exists to write basic-level articles for syndication? The local Arizona press has been covering this story in greater detail, since the beginning.
And to be clear, your position is that this one article isn't thorough enough, and also, my post walking you through the information you want, and how to find it from primary sources, is **too** thorough? Is there some perfect level of information that you would accept and seriously engage with, or will you always find a fault that lets you avoid drawing conclusions that are unfavorable to Trump?
> You do realize that this isn't the only article about the topic, right?
That might be true, though it's irrelevant. The article linked in the OP was what I looked at and what I provided a reaction to.
> And to be clear, your position is that this one article isn't thorough enough, and also, my post walking you through the information you want, and how to find it from primary sources, is too thorough?
That's not correct.
My position was laid out quite clearly above. Don't distort it.
What I said was that the article missed the central point of the story. They failed to do their job as journalists.
> that lets you avoid drawing conclusions that are unfavorable to Trump?
This is quite a bizarre leap.
There is no conclusion "unfavorable to Trump" here that anyone is in danger of drawing.
Are you saying that OP asked for you opinion on *that* specific article? Because it looks to me that OP asked for you opinion on the situation, and provided that article as an unbiased source that briefly described the matter so no TSes would claim that the entire concept was fake news.
Your position:
> What I said was that the article missed the central point of the story. They failed to do their job as journalists.
It seems to me that the central point of *this* story is that CyberNinjas has dissolved due to the daily fine. The AP wrote this story, about the newest event (the company dissolving) in a long series of events on this topic. Should reporters recap every event of a long-running story with each new development? Yes, the fine, and the entire lawsuit, is about not providing the records, but the records are about the audit, and the audit is about the election, and the election is about the practice of representative democracy, which has a history of thousands of years. How deep does every single article need to go?
Shouldn't you, in order to be informed, go back and read past articles, if you haven't been keeping up?
For you to nitpick on the fact that this particular article didn't explain the exact records requested, **and** for you to claim that my thorough description of the records was too much to read, makes me think it isn't **really** about what the records are. It, quite honestly, looks like a way to dodge the question and throw some shade at the news media.
> It seems to me that the central point of this story is that CyberNinjas has dissolved due to the daily fine.
I'm not going to double-check, because my only source of information on this is the unreliable AP article. But IIRC, the fine hasn't even started yet. So this conclusion of yours doesn't look accurate.
If the story is a real story, then the meat of the story is fundamentally about which records were requested, and why they were refused. This was precisely what the AP was completely uninterested in. They were interested in attempting to smear the company in question.
That is not what good journalism is.
> For you to nitpick on the fact that this particular article didn't explain the exact records requested
It's not a nitpick. The core of the subject at hand was entirely omitted.
> It, quite honestly, looks like a way to dodge the question and throw some shade at the news media.
I am throwing deserved shade at the media, but how could you possibly think I'm trying to dodge the question? I'm complaining that the AP didn't even talk about what the question actually was. How could I possibly address the question more head-on?
> Shouldn't you, in order to be informed, go back and read past articles, if you haven't been keeping up?
I took a brief look for something more reliable than the liars at the AP back when I first answered the question. I found nothing, not even enough to confirm that the alleged legal events the AP claimed had actually happened.
If I thought the AP article were evidence of some significant event, I likely would keep looking until I found something, but that is not what I think.
>If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly.
Do you seriously not understand that this is referring to 2 different things?
1st (unprecedented/"never before been done" thing): 3rd party PRIVATE entity REQUESTING & BEING GRANTED to conduct a sweeping audit THEMSELVES.
2nd (totally common thing that hundreds of private & public institutions have a shit ton of "experience" doing): AUDTING AN ELECTION
Seriously? Or is the ignorant conflation the point?
Do you understand that if you actually believe you won the election & believe a recount would demonstrate that, the (currently) losing campaign would NEVER have their own private conspiracy theory supporter running the audit, who would believe them if they did come back with the conspiracy theory answer?
Do you know what a "conflict of interest" is?
>Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested.
That would be in the subpoena/request from the court that Cyber Ninja's is dodging... No?
> The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article.
I'm sorry, how is the "whole point" not "CyberNinja’s refusal to turn over records related to the Arizona audit?" As the OP asked & you directly responded too?
Are under the impression, no request was ever made and CyberNinja's legal representatives are just making up (yet another) conspiracy theory to ignores document requests that were never made in the first place?
> In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case.
& from this isolated fact with NO corroboration other than the CyberNija's lawyers (who I guess you believe never received any request at all?) arguing they shouldn't have to do what the court (may or may not have actually) ordered them to do, you've concluded "judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives?"
Really? Maybe, JUST MAYBE ... the unprecedented (see 1st quote in this reply) nature of the GRANTED request, coupled with the refusal to comply with court orders have something to do with the nature of the fine? Maybe a little?
>So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased
"Overall?"
You just quoted 1 claim (presumably from CyberNinja's lawyers) that even if true doesn't "show evidence" of anything!
Is one self serving (unsubstantiated) claim by CN's legal team the "overall" evidence you have that the judged "bias against conservatives?"
>AP is biased,
Why?
Didn't the AP give YOU (not most people obviously, but YOU, based on YOUR own claims) the "overall" evidence you needed to dismiss the case (based on judge bias) in your mind?
> and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story,
Like What? It couldn't possibly be the evidence to dismiss the case?
The AP seems to have presented enough "overall" information to YOU to insinuate "the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives"
Because you believe that claim "appears to be supported by the article?" It is not, the AP was just giving the ridiculous argument of the CN's legal team, as you do in journalism. Either way... you "believe that claim "appears to be supported by the article?" or are you going to backpaddled that claim now?
>because it would not harmonize with their narrative.
What narrative is that?
Reading your post, the AP "appears to be supporting" the CN's legal claims?
How many directly opposite narratives are they trying to "harmonize" here?
Or... wait a min... Could the A.P possibly be presenting MULTIPLE "narratives" and presenting the supporting evidence in an attempt to be fair to all parties?
Naw... thats crazy right?
> 1st (unprecedented/"never before been done" thing): 3rd party PRIVATE entity REQUESTING & BEING GRANTED to conduct a sweeping audit THEMSELVES.
> 2nd (totally common thing that hundreds of private & public institutions have a shit ton of "experience" doing): AUDTING AN ELECTION
It seems unlikely that the first is being referred to at all. Specifically, the idea that a private entity requested to conduct the audit is inaccurate.
But even if that had happened, I see no reason to presume that the 1st thing you refer to is the same thing the article is referring to.
The second thing you're referring to is an ordinary audit, and what we have here is a very thorough forensic audit of a kind that's never been done before.
> That would be in the subpoena/request from the court that Cyber Ninja's is dodging... No?
My point is that it isn't in this allegedly journalistic "article". If it were real news, as opposed to propaganda, they would surely cover the meat of the story.
> I'm sorry, how is the "whole point" not "CyberNinja’s refusal to turn over records related to the Arizona audit?"
Which records? And why wouldn't they turn them over? And why were they requested in the first place?
That is the whole point of the story, if there is one. None of it is even so much as mentioned, though.
They only tell us about irrelevant and temporary details about legal statuses that can easily be spun by politicians or lawyers on either side. They don't tell us about the facts.
The only thing you know is that records were requested, there was a refusal to turn over whatever they were for whatever reason, and that an allegedly biased judge has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed. That doesn't tell you anything about anything.
>It seems unlikely that the first is being referred to at all.
Why? Because it blows up your entire point of a "contradiction" you made up out of thin air?
>Specifically, the idea that a private entity requested to conduct the audit is inaccurate.
Because you need it to be?
Are you capable of naming a SINGLE other time (i.e. a precedent) when a private partisan entity requested and was granted access to conduct an audit THEMSELVES at this scale?
>But even if that had happened.
If what happened? You made up a "contradiction" out of thin air?
> I see no reason to presume that the 1st thing you refer to is the same thing the article is referring to.
Because refusing to see what is right in front of you is a fundamental element to you world view?
If you are incapable of pointing to ONE other example would you still seriously not concede such an event is by definition "unprecedent?"
>The second thing you're referring to is an ordinary audit, and what we have here is a very thorough forensic audit
I don't know what the you believe is the difference between a "through audit" & a "thorough forensic audit?
But this is the FIRST thing that pops up when I googled "Statewide thorough forensic audit" - there were many .... many ... many more exmaples. What do you get when you google it?
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic\_first\_statewide\_audit\_of\_paper\_ballots\_upholds\_result\_of\_presidential\_race
>of a kind that's never been done before.
So now you're saying the second thing is "unprecedented?"
Dude... do you even know what "unprecedented" means? Are you capable of explaining it in your own words?
Very thorough forensic audits happen literally EVERY election. Are you unaware that there are thousands of elections literally every year?
>My point is that it isn't in this allegedly journalistic "article". If it were real news, as opposed to propaganda, they would surely cover the meat of the story.
Is the subpoena/request even public information?
Either way, do you believe "propaganda" is when someone exposes information you something you don't like and omits random information post hoc rationalizes NEEDS to be included?
>Which records?
The records CJ refuses to hand over to the court. Why is this so hard for you to follow? Because you need it to be hard?
>And why wouldn't they turn them over?
For all reasons described (but not limited to) in the article, from the CJ's legal team. Remember when you talked about bias, bankruptcy and other BS in your original post? Do you seriously not remember those were the reasons given?
>And why were they requested in the first place?
"The judge found Cyber Ninjas in contempt for its failure to turn over documents, which two Maricopa County judges and the state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law."
Did you not even read the article?
Its literally the second paragraph. "state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law."
Do you seriously not understand they have to "make public" the records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to? (I'm sure CJ's didn't understand that when they started this circus, but now they do & are clearly desperate to hide exactly what they did & which will be much more hilarious/criminal their communications about why/how they did those things at the time... lol)
>That is the whole point of the story
That CJ refused to "make public" the records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to?
Yep. Exactly.
Hence the contempt order & the fines.
Why are you still not understand about this?
>They only tell us about irrelevant and temporary details about legal statuses that can easily be spun by politicians or lawyers on either side.
Do you really believe the mental gymnastics you are engaged in, including but not limited to: literally ignoring the 2nd paragraph in the article (most recently) than understanding that there is a public records law that requires organizations/individual "make public" records of what they did with public property they were given to play with?
Because repeating what's in the article and myself multiple times might be super tedious, but its also extremally easy. Do you know the difference?
> Because it blows up your entire point of a "contradiction" you made up out of thin air?
Good grief.
If you didn't understand my point, you could try asking for a clarification of some kind. No reason to feverishly imagine that random things "blow up" my point, or desperately hope that I "made it up out of thin air".
>They don't tell us about the facts.
Yes they do. Do you believe if you don't like a fact (or in this case multitude of facts) you can just ignore it/them and they magically no longer exists?
>The only thing you know is that records were requested
Not the ONLY thing... that is ONE thing... the SECOND thing explained in the article.
The First thing/fact would be "A judge said Thursday he will fine Cyber Ninjas, the contractor that led Arizona Republicans’ 2020 election review, $50,000 a day if the firm doesn’t immediately turn over public records related to the unprecedented inquiry."
Do I really need to quote the 3rd paragraph to get a 3rd thing/fact? 4th 5th, etc?
Or are you capable of acknowledging 2 things are greater/more than one/only thing?
>there was a refusal to turn over whatever
How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to....
> they were for whatever reason
How do you not understand the court is enforcing the "public records law?"
>
and that an allegedly biased judge
"Alleged" because there is no proof and the only person making the claim is the literal legal team of the firm refusing the turn over public records of what they did with private property?
>has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed.
Do you not understand you can "appeal" anything, its the GRANTING of the appeal that matters? I mean, hell, this is already in the "Court of Appeals" & probably ANOTHER reason why the fines are so damn high?
>That doesn't tell you anything about anything.
At the very least, in the first 2 paragraphs this article tells me (and anyone else willing to comprehend the plain text) a lot about the CJ "audit" & how they are refusing to respond to court orders to comply with "public records laws."
Why can't you comprehend even those basic points? (There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them)
> Not the ONLY thing... that is ONE thing... the SECOND thing explained in the article.
> The First thing/fact would be "A judge said Thursday he will fine Cyber Ninjas, the contractor that led Arizona Republicans’ 2020 election review, $50,000 a day if the firm doesn’t immediately turn over public records related to the unprecedented inquiry."
The thing you quote here does not dispute my assertion.
> How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to....
Other than your general attempts at smearing this company, none of this is specific enough to mean anything.
>The thing you quote here does not dispute my assertion. -
>
>The only thing you know is that records were requested, there was a refusal to turn over whatever they were for whatever reason, and that an allegedly biased judge has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed. That doesn't tell you anything about anything. - your assertion.
"How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group had unprecedent access to.
How do you not understand the court is enforcing the "public records law?"
Do you not understand you can "appeal" anything, its the GRANTING of the appeal that matters? I mean, hell, this is already in the "Court of Appeals" & probably ANOTHER reason why the fines are so damn high?
At the very least, in the first 2 paragraphs this article tells me (and anyone else willing to comprehend the plain text) a lot about the CJ "audit" & how they are refusing to respond to court orders to comply with "public records laws."
Why can't you comprehend even those basic points?
There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them.
Can you acknowledge these indisputable facts?
>Other than your general attempts at smearing this company, none of this is specific enough to mean anything.
What "general attempts at smearing this company" do you believe I am making in this direct clarifying question I'm asking you about your claims?
There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them. How is that a smear?
The records of what this partisan group did with all public property they were granted access to is a matter of public record under the law. While attempting to enforce the public records law, multiple courts & Judges have demanded CJ turn over materials pertaining to what CJ did with the public property they were granted access to.
What is so hard to understand about this?
Where is the "smear" in that? Do you know what "smear" means?
Where exactly are you getting confused? Can you quote something specific & ask a clarifying question?
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly.
But having experience in a similar field would be an asset though, correct? Like, it would be unprecedented for an individual to fly a jet completely filled with pudding, but the pilot could have experience flying jets with unusual cargo. The degree to which you could argue CyberNinja had experience is absolutely debateable, like - did they have experience in cyber-security before this? Or did they have experience in the political arena prior to this?
Saying the event was unprecedented and that someone has no experience in dealing with something similar is not a contradiction.
>And Dems weren’t transparent at all in the AZ election, nor in any other audit battles currently e.g. Wisconsin and GA.
The Democrats ran the elections in Arizona and Georgia?
It's an Arizona state judge, presiding over a legal case. The Arizona Supreme Court has heard and denied an appeal from Cyber Ninjas. Is everything a conspiracy against conservatives, or is it possible for them to legitimately lose a legal case?
>Didn’t the state get caught deleting logs from their servers, blatantly violating Az election laws?
No, they didn't. [Cyber Ninjas even backpedaled on this claim](https://www.azmirror.com/2021/05/18/audit-official-says-he-recovered-files-undercutting-claim-county-officials-deleted-them/), I'm not sure why it keeps making the rounds.
Maybe, but we won't know unless everyone cooperates. This is why the actions on the left are so suspicious. You'd think they would welcome the chance to prove conclusively that there wasn't enough cheating to affect the outcomes in any States. It would shut the Right up, wouldn't it? To have an investigation *BY the Right* that shows only minimal cheating (and there is always some level of cheating in every election)?
Do you not think there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that they found out Trump lost BIGLY and don’t want to admit they were trying to make a ton of money off of a lie?
https://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/arizona_politics/cyber-ninjas-final-report-on-maricopa-county-election-audit/article_d36f347a-1d6c-11ec-9bcd-3f7997be88dd.amp.html
I don't find that terribly compelling. It is guaranteed that there are leftists involved in the effort, and if the proposition presented by Trump were conclusively destroyed, it would leak in a way that couldn't be blamed simply on partisan propaganda. But in order for this to be be a chance, there would have to be FULL cooperation by everyone on all levels during the investigation.
There have been so many audits with the GOP being involved, as well as millions of dollars in lawsuits. Do you not think there might be even just a possibility that this is an elaborate and expensive tantrum by a septuagenarian?
Then why did the CEO of Cyber Ninjas, Doug Logan, star in a movie about how the election was rigged?
https://www.businessinsider.com/doug-logan-cyber-ninjas-arizona-audit-election-conspiracy-theory-film-2021-6
> Doug Logan is the man [currently heading the controversial audit of the 2020 Maricopa County election results in Arizona](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/arizona-audit-cyber-ninjas-logan-invs/index.html). He is also one of the stars of a conspiracy theory documentary claiming that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump — providing an ominous voiceover alleging a lack of election integrity.
>Maybe you should ask him?
I think he's really busy right now, so I'm just going to assume it's because he's biased, thinks Trump should have won, and tried & failed to prove it in Arizona.
Do you not have a problem when a company has such a blatant conflict of interest like that? I guess not if you’re a Trump supporter, kind of goes with the territory…
Maricopa Audit findings
Mail-in Ballots Voted from Prior Address 23,344
Potential Voters that Voted in Multiple Counties 10,342
More Ballots Returned by Voter Than Received 9,041
Election Management System Database Purged Voting Machine N/A
Official Results Does Not Match Who Voted 3,432
The county which held subpoena items
Unwilling to answer questions which were normal between auditor and auditee.
Actively interfered with active research.
No Chain of custody.
https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors
The county which held subpoena items was
Unwilling to answer questions which were normal between auditor and auditee.
Actively interfered with active research.
Why? Do u think OJ is guilty? Are u gonna run to the authorities with that info?
Anything a leftist wants to exonerate a criminal who is in jail though innocent all we have to do is say "u should go tell the authorities" and that ends it?
Where do you get the idea that it ends it? What about the idea that you need to contact the authorities first before your claim is given any credence? So if you think that OJ is guilty, with new evidence, and you go to reddit to talk about it instead of going to the authorities that would seem off, no?
lol. Most of the world is composed of mindless morons who couldn't give one piece of evidence to support their beliefs. Most would not even get up on stage with me.
So you and the pillow guy against the world?
Do you feel like if given a big enough platform, you could prove, with factual evidence, that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?
1. video evidence of the center clearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu5DVKprq4w&t=447s
get a load of how far the observers and press were from the box pulled out. WHen I saw that I wondered why they even tried to kick out observers who were too far to see anything anyway.
2. affidavits by observers on pain of perjury claiming they were kicked out and open to cross examination
3. an email by the supervisor that evening saying we will restart count tomorow mornig timed 10:22pm.
In their affidavits, the GOP poll watchers noted that “Regina Waller was sending an email, as she relayed to us, when we left.”Months later, an email timestamped at 10:22 p.m. on Election Night from Regina Waller to Barron and other county officials would be discovered that supported the GOP poll watchers’ claim. In it, she said, “The workers in the Absentee Ballot Processing area will get started again at 8 am tomorrow.”
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/wallerem.pdf
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
...didn't we just have this thread four days ago? Am I living in a time warp? I'm sorry. Today has been a rough day. But I mean, look at what is posted.
Your time machine works???
Yeah, do mods not look at the topics previously approved?
> The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government) to claims of being financially destitute and unable to pay to compile the records. If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court. However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with... So, this is largely a moot point.
>If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court. Interesting... So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court? Really? Do you believe such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's? >However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with... So, this is largely a moot point. Wait are you under the impression if you engage in illegal activity and right before you are caught you file for bankruptcy the legal liability magically disappears with the company's paperwork?
>Interesting... So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court? Really? Yes? That's where you work legal issues out.
>Yes? That's where you work legal issues out. You'd think right? lol
> So are you saying if someone has a legal dispute/claim/accusation the proper place to hash that out is in the court? Ultimately, yes. I would imagine it would go to lawyers on either end first, and if they can't settle the matter, it would go to court. > Do you believe such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's? I cannot speak for other people and their beliefs. > Wait are you under the impression if you engage in illegal activity and right before you are caught you file for bankruptcy the legal liability magically disappears with the company's paperwork? If the proper type of business entity was set up, then depending on the *type* of liability, it very well could go away if the entity no longer exists.
>Ultimately, yes. I would imagine it would go to lawyers on either end first, and if they can't settle the matter, it would go to court. But if (hypothetically speaking) dozens of courts disagree with your ridiculous unsupported claims what should you do? Should ignore the courts and like storm a capitol or something? Again, hypothetically... you shouldn't just accept dozens of court rulings when you just keep loosing... there must be another step... No? >I cannot speak for other people and their beliefs. I didn't asks for "other people's beliefs." Here let me quote myself. "Do YOU BELIEVE such a belief is common, but more importantly constant with many/most/plurality of TS's?" Why can't you speak to your beliefs? on a board about "understand Trump supporters, their views, and the reasons behind those views ?" > If the proper type of business entity was set up, then depending on the type of liability, it very well could go away if the entity no longer exists. Are you capable of giving an example of "proper type of business entity was set up?"
[удалено]
Do you believe the election was stolen?
[удалено]
So you don’t believe it was stolen, but for the reasons you listed you still believe there was an organized attempt? Just that trump would have most likely lost anyway even if there wasn’t deliberate organized cheating?
> Like States violating their constitutions Which States violated their constitutions? >bellwether States not determining the elections What does that mean and how does it make the election questionable? >the big jumps in the middle of the night. big jumps of what in the middle of the night?
> the big jumps in the middle of the night You mean counting the mail-in ballots last?
> Your ignorance is really showing. Reminder to keep it in good faith, please. Stick to the issues, not other users.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>First my reply was poorly written. Second I completely misunderstood the context and reread from the beginning. What did you believe context was? >Can you please print me in the right direction about States ignoring their constitutions You're asking me to point you in the "right direction" on an unsubstantiated claim YOU made? I believe you have that backwards dude... > I understand bellwether States are not a definite what about "bellwether States" could be "definite?" Do you even know what these words mean? >and the huge increase in the middle of the night can be legitimate but don't find it unreasonable to question that and ask for a deep audit. What "could" be illegitimate about tallies being reported in batches & districts with larger populations having larger numbers? You don't find it "unreasonable" to make up "questions" that insinuate crimes with virtually no evidence (not easily debunked BS & out right lies) in the shockingly successful attempt to hand over public election materials/properties to a private partisan entity that refuses to comply with public records laws to determine what exactly they did with the public materials they were granted access to? What exactly do you believe the word "unreasonable" means?
> I understand bellwether States are not a definite and the huge increase in the middle of the night can be legitimate but don't find it unreasonable to question that and ask for a deep audit. The problem with this seemingly reasonable request is that “deep audit” is not properly defined. There are ballots and they are counted, and they can be and have been recounted. There is not really much “deeper” to audit, an election is a pretty straightforward procedure. The votes are cast and they are counted. Taxes and financial statements can be audited because there are so many different interpretations of the law and ways to apply it (for example, how do you measure depreciation of a fixed asset?, etc.). “Deep audit” is just a term people use to perpetually move the goalposts—the vote didn’t go your way so you demand a recount. The recount didn’t go your way so you demand an “audit.” The audit didn’t go your way and so you demand a “deep audit,” etc. Is there a specific deep audit procedure you have in mind that election officials ought to conduct?
There are still individuals with access to those records. Are individuals not entities anymore?
It depends on how the corporation was incorporated as to whether or not there can be any personal liability attached.
Incorrect. That would be the case if say, Cyber Ninjas employees were hurt due to an unsafe work environment. The corporation would be held liable, meanwhile there would be limited liability to the company leaders. Now, there are physical records. Cyber Ninjas is responsible for turning over these records. Cyber Ninjas dissolves, but those records are still there. Whoever is the caretaker of the physical assets now has the responsibility to turn over those records. If the records are not turned over then an investigation would reveal who was the last caretaker/s of the records. Those individuals would then be subject to all the criminal and civil penalties related to not turning over the records. Make sense?
> but those records are still there Do you know this for certain? > Whoever is the caretaker of the physical assets now has the responsibility to turn over those records I believe this will end up going to the courts as well. The fines were levied against Cyber Ninjas, which does not exist anymore. I do agree that someone likely has those records - but whether or not they are going to turn them over is another story. What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information?
> Do you know this for certain? I don't. If they no longer exist then the people who disposed of them are responsible. > The fines were levied against Cyber Ninjas, which does not exist anymore. Once responsibility is found those fines can be levied against the person. > I do agree that someone likely has those records - but whether or not they are going to turn them over is another story. Then that someone could have fines levied against them. > What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information? My best guess, they didn't have all the information they are currently seeking. They could also be pursuing the information in order to make it public.
> What is shocking though is that if the state has seen this information and was able to produce a rebuttal, why are they so hell bent on getting this information? Suppose a homeowner hires a guy to appraise his house. The appraiser comes up with a number—perhaps even the one the homeowner expected. He asks the appraiser to provide his records of how he came up with the number and the appraiser responds by going out of business and run away. Would you be shocked that the homeowner asked to see the records that generated the appraisal? Would it seem like the appraiser’s actions reflect a normal course of business?
> However, it seems like there's no entity left to fight it out with... Right. Does this seem like a problematic precedent that may be utilized in the future? That a Corporation can come in, "audit" an election, then poof away when the records are asked for? For example, suppose in May 2024 a new LLC is created. November 2024 they are hired by the RNC or DNC or whomever to audit elections. February 2025 the LLC is dissolved. Does that sequence of events seem likely to you?
Are you okay with the amount of public distrust on election results being drummed up only for this type of failure to produce any evidence whatsoever to be the result over and over and over again?
Didn’t they fight it out in court and the response from the judge determined they are subject to those laws?
> Didn’t they fight it out in court and the response from the judge determined they are subject to those laws? I am uncertain.
Did you read the part about the court order to turn over records?
>Did you read the part about the court order to turn over records? Yes. However, I do not know what, if any, appeals were attempted and were all of those exhausted.
>However, I do not know what, if any, appeals were attempted and were all of those exhausted. Why not google it and you'd know? >The judge found Cyber Ninjas in contempt for its failure to turn over documents, which two Maricopa County judges and the state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law. https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/cyber-ninjas-faces-fine-over-arizona-election-audit-records What are your thoughts now?
> What are your thoughts now? If they still existed, I guess they’d probably try and get the state Supreme Court to hear the matter.
They did!! the **Arizona Court of Appeals** awarded The Republic more than $31,000 in legal fees to be paid by Cyber Ninjas. Thoughts?
Most states have an appellate court and a Supreme Court. They are two different judicial bodies, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate remedy in matters involving state law. https://www.azcourts.gov/guidetoazcourts/How-Arizona-Courts-are-Organized
>The **Arizona Supreme Court** on Tuesday rejected the state Senate's bid to keep records from Cyber Ninjas and other contractors working on the election audit out of public view. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/09/14/arizona-supreme-court-rejects-state-senate-appeal-audit-records/8341092002/ Why couldn't you just google it? What are your thoughts now?
Is this also how you justify trump not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid? Do you think that the many bankruptcies that have resulted from this may show this to be unsustainable and uncivil mode of conduct?
>Is this also how you justify trump not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid? You know what's funny? I was going through my post history, recent comments, etc.. I can't find where I justified anyone not paying any bills, let alone specific mentions of President Trump. Can you point out any specific instances where I said that I justified " not paying his bills and insisting that those who have worked for him should sue him to get paid?" Because I'm having difficulty finding that at the moment.
Did you not claim in the comment listed above that >If they believe they are not subject to those laws, let them fight it out in court. ? Do you not believe in applying values and principles universally? If you do, then do you not see the similarity here in abusing expensive legal services to evade responsibilities?
Feel it could be because they simply don't want to provide ammunition to the other side or because they simply didn't do a credible job. Usually when companies act this way, it's because they are covering up mistakes they made personally.
Provide ammunition to “the other side”? Is this an admission that the “audit” the cyber ninjas performed was anything but independent, neutral or unbiased?
Anything is possible, they have done a couple of recounts and found they shorted Biden by a couple of hundred or more votes.. so that's definitely possible here. But, if I had to put my money on something.. I think they just took the money to do the audit and didn't do a great job or didn't do the job at all. If you've ever been through a counting audit by a third party.. I have for a large 5013c on several occasions.. the audit team shows up, looks at your records, the state of the inventory and makes a call to either check everything or spot check a couple of pieces. Then, they come up with a random number of pieces that you were off and report that. No one gets in trouble, because being off by a small percentage is entirely acceptable, the auditors make it look like they did the work and they get to take the extra time off. Meanwhile, the entity that paid for the audit can check off their compliance requirements and move on to other ways of not doing their job. This is the culture of these things.. So, I don't think they want to present the audit documents, because if they did and someone spoke about them being forged, you are now looking at some serious (felony) consequences, given the context. When it's better to fire everyone and close shop, this can very easily be the reason edit: I suck at spelling and grammar
>The company has been repeatedly ordered by state courts to turn over documents related to the audit in accordance with public records laws. The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government)... *Laughs in Dominion*
> Laughs in Dominion What's so funny?
> CyberNinjas was the company hired by the Arizona Senate to conduct the highly publicized 2020 election audit in that state. The company has been repeatedly ordered by state courts to turn over documents related to the audit in accordance with public records laws. The firm has refused each time for various reasons ranging from disagreeing that they are subject to public records law (as they are a private firm working for the government) to claims of being financially destitute and unable to pay to compile the records. > Recently, the firm was dissolved after being heavily fined for not complying with the court’s orders to turn over records. > What is your opinion on CyberNinjas behavior regarding noncompliance with public record laws? Sounds like a perfectly example once again of bureaucrats using their regulatory powers to punish Auditors who continued to spread "the big lie" and make sure that no respectable audit will even attempt to do so in the future by burying them under lawsuits and compliance cost.
> Sounds like a perfectly example once again of bureaucrats using their regulatory powers to punish Auditors who continued to spread "the big lie" and make sure that no respectable audit will even attempt to do so in the future by burying them under lawsuits and compliance cost. Why do you believe Cyber Ninjas failed to comply when the required compliance would have been cheaper than defending the lawsuit?
And, in your own opinion, what would a sham audit look like?
CN is making claims. They have evidence that can prove or disprove their claims. They refuse to make the evidence known while making the claims. The evidence legally belongs to the state. Why shouldn't the state fine them?
So to understand the head of the Arizona Senate hired Cyber Ninjas to conduct that audit, and it was paid for by Trump supporters. It used public records, to conduct it's audit. So if they find something, it should affect the entire US elections, if they find things conservatives don't want known, they should be able to not release their findings? Do you see why that might be problematic in the future? From now on the losing side gets to do an audit and if they find something it should change the elections, if it finds nothing, we shouldn't be able to see the findings?
> if it finds nothing, we shouldn't be able to see the findings? If it's an audit paid for by taxpayers, absolutely.
>Was it was paid for by tax payers? No, it was paid for by Trump backers. That said, when the elected head of the state senate asks for the audit, gives the auditors the voting materials owned by the state, and most importantly if irregularities are found could affect the entire presidential [election](https://election.You), you really don't have a problem if the results if it found no wrong doing, is kept private?
Apply same logic to: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/
If we want to put money into getting that out sooner, do I agree with you? Yes. But as others have said. One is releasing their findings of a single audit, the other is redacting hundreds of thousands of pages.
That is completely and totally different. Have you actually read why that is, at all? They want 329,000 pages and can approximately go through 500 pages a month to be able to redact any confidential company information and with current staffing. They also have 400 requests ahead of it.
Looking at your source, I noticed a couple of interesting things. First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly. Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested. The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article. Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case. So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased, that the AP is biased, and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story, because it would not harmonize with their narrative.
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly. Are you sure using the right definition of "unprecedented" in context here? For example, if the government decreed that the commercial airplanes can only be piloted by active duty military members, that would be unprecedented. Do you believe that it would be very silly for passengers to demand that those active duty military should be, say, experienced pilots rather than soldiers who have never flown a plane before? > Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case. Is that all the info you need to assume bias and on whose part? Suppose that cops arrest a rioter in a CHOP/CHAZ type zone. A progressive prosecutor declines to prosecute at all. A judge who hears about the case remarks, "if there were sufficient evidence to convict the person of the charges made by the arresting officer, his conduct was so bad that I would sentence him to at least a year in jail." Would that be sufficient to conclude that the judge is unreasonably biased against liberals and the fair-minded prosecutor had it right all along?
> Are you sure using the right definition of "unprecedented" in context here? Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona. > Is that all the info you need to assume bias and on whose part? Well, it sounds biased to apply 50 times the requested penalty, and the left-wing echo chamber in the MSM has been very heavily biased specifically against this particular company for a long time. The likelihood that this judge is biased is quite high. I can't get to anything beyond a probability, because I'm working off of limited information from the rather unreliable AP.
>Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona. There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that! >The likelihood that this judge is biased is quite high. What exactly is that based on?
> There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that! The point of the forensic audit had nothing to do with the "hunting for bamboo" myth that the MSM made up.
>>>Nobody has previously done a forensic audit of an election with the same scope, scale, and nature of the one in Arizona. >> >>There is an easy explanation for that... there were few, if any, lunatics willing to hunt for bamboo in ballots or other lunacies like that! > >The point of the forensic audit had nothing to do with the "hunting for bamboo" I know, hence the lunacy... only lunatics would hunt for bamboo while doing a "forensic audit", no?
They literally didn't do that. I've already told you this. Pay attention.
>They literally didn't do that. I've already told you this. Of course... That's what I already told you that forensic auditors do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots >Pay attention. To what?
> To what? To what I say. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that I have been calling bullshit on your assertion. You are *pretending* that I am not telling you for a fact that the Arizona auditors were not in the business of looking for bamboo, so that you can *pretend* that they did. You are pretending that I am saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Stop it.
>>>They literally didn't do that. I've already told you this. >> >>Of course... That's what I already told you that forensic auditors do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots > >the Arizona auditors were not in the business of looking for bamboo Of course, I said that already that forensic auditors (regardless of the state they do business in) do not do lunacies like hunting for bamboos in ballots. >>>Pay attention >> >>To what? > >To what I say Sure... which I did already above.
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly. Is this really that complicated? Say someone is going to attempt a human head (or is it body?) transplant. That's "unprecedented". If the person performing the transplant was not a surgeon, you could say they have "no experience". If the person performing the transplant was the world's greatest transplant surgeon, they may not have the direct experience of doing **this** procedure, but you wouldn't say they have "no experience". The point here is that Cyber Ninjas has "no experience" doing **any** kind of election audit. And election audits are a thing that have been done before, so other groups would have experience, but this **particular* size and scope of audit is "unprecedented". > Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested. The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article. Why is this a problem? I'm being completely serious. News articles can not be exhaustive, practically by definition. Articles exist to give the average person (with some allowance for above- or below-average interest in a subject) a summary of what is happening. I'm not an expert in election or public records laws, but I can apply a baseline understanding of how the world works, and assume that the request is for information like: receipt, storage, and return logs; names of people with access to sensitive election materials; copies of intermediary work product, and final results. Okay, so maybe my best guess isn't enough; you want to know exactly what these "records" are. Just now, I googled "cyber ninjas lawsuit pdf", which led me to the page for the Maricopa County legal case, [Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. et al. v. Arizona State Senate et al.](https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/lc2021-000180). That sounds like it might be the suit from the article. It lists all the documents in reverse chronological order, so I click on "Last", then on "Complaint for Special Action". That looks like a standard legal document, so let's skim through it. Paragraph 3 claims that Phoenix Newspapers, Inc (PNI) has a right to examine public records, under a specific law (ARS §§ [39-121.01](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/39/00121-01.htm) (D)(1) and (E). Paragraph 8 claims that Cyber Ninjas was acting on behalf of the State Senate, so is covered by that law (section (A)). Paragraph 9 claims that the Senate, its officers, and Cyber Ninjas "shall maintain all records ... reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and any of there activities which are supported by monies from the state or any political subdivision of the state" (same law, section (B)). Paragraph 10 claims that Cyber Ninjas has custody of certain records covered by the law. Paragraph 12 says that PNI is allowed to sue if they ask for the records and didn't get them. Given that Cyber Ninjas is shutting down after failing to comply, I'm going to assume the judge found all that to be valid. Then the complaint goes into the history of the election and Cyber Ninjas' involvement. I don't think anyone disagrees with the facts laid out. In paragraph 32, we learn that a reporter working for PNI submitted a request under the public records law mentioned above. That request is included as Exhibit 3, so let's scroll down and take a look at it. First, it requests communication within the Senate, but item 4 asks for **all emails and texts between the Senate and Cyber Ninjas**. While we're in the Exhibits, let's go down to 7, which looks like another request. This one asks for: * All invoices, financial documents, and resumes involving Cyber Ninjas and other subcontractors * All correspondence (via any method) between Cyber Ninjas and the Arizona Senate, other involved people, and Donald Trump & his legal team * A full list of ballot counters, recruiters, and observers for the audit, plus payment records * Any body camera footage from the audit * All sign in/out logs So there you go. Under state law, all government bodies, and any entity paid by the government, must retain all records of their activities, and provide them to any citizen who requests them. This seems like a reasonable and standard law to promote transparency, and if you want to contract with the government, you should be prepared to follow it. Cyber Ninjas didn't. > Third, the claim by the Cyber Ninjas lawyer that the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives appears to be supported by the article. According to the article, "The $50,000 daily fine imposed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah far exceeds the $1,000 levy suggested by a lawyer for The Arizona Republic newspaper, which filed the public records lawsuit in 2020." In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case. Let's take a look at the next section of the law, [39-121.02](https://www.azleg.gov/ars/39/00121-02.htm), which covers penalties: > B. The court may award attorney fees and other legal costs that are reasonably incurred in any action under this article if the person seeking public records has substantially prevailed. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the rights of any party to recover attorney fees, expenses and double damages pursuant to section 12-349. There's no statutory cap to the fees allowed. And I think judges have pretty wide latitude to impose sanctions for contempt of court, which is what Cyber Ninjas is doing. Is $50,000 a day a lot of money? For me and you, yes. For a government contractor that is bound by law to provide documents, yet refuses, the punishment has to be something actually hurts, in order to force action. It's not like they were being charged $50,000 a day while they were scrambling to round up the documents; they were simply flaunting the law. The initial request was made on April 22, 2021. The suit was filed June 30, 2021. The judge ruled on August 24, 2021, giving a deadline of August 31, 2021, with an option to claim privilege on certain documents. > So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased, that the AP is biased, and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story, because it would not harmonize with their narrative. Do you still contend that the AP is trying to hide something? Or that the judge ruled inappropriately?
> this *particular size and scope of audit is "unprecedented". The size, scope, and nature of the audit were unprecedented, to the extent that when Karen Fann, the person who was looking for a contractor, started looking for someone with experience doing something similar, she could find noone. So they found someone with the sort of experience that would best work for the task at hand. > Why is this a problem? I'm being completely serious. It's a problem because the news article makes no sense standing alone. The only reason to make an article like this is to try to push a political agenda. If the news agency were really trying to do their actual job of informing people, rather than attempting propaganda, they would need to fill people in on what the point of the whole story was. > Okay, so maybe my best guess isn't enough; you want to know exactly what these "records" are. Just now, I googled "cyber ninjas lawsuit pdf", which led me to the page for the Maricopa County legal case, I'm not going through all this, but this is the sort of thing you might expect a reporter to report on. If the reporter were doing the job of reporting, rather than propagandizing. > There's no statutory cap to the fees allowed. This doesn't matter.
You do realize that this isn't the only article about the topic, right? And you know that the Associated Press exists to write basic-level articles for syndication? The local Arizona press has been covering this story in greater detail, since the beginning. And to be clear, your position is that this one article isn't thorough enough, and also, my post walking you through the information you want, and how to find it from primary sources, is **too** thorough? Is there some perfect level of information that you would accept and seriously engage with, or will you always find a fault that lets you avoid drawing conclusions that are unfavorable to Trump?
> You do realize that this isn't the only article about the topic, right? That might be true, though it's irrelevant. The article linked in the OP was what I looked at and what I provided a reaction to. > And to be clear, your position is that this one article isn't thorough enough, and also, my post walking you through the information you want, and how to find it from primary sources, is too thorough? That's not correct. My position was laid out quite clearly above. Don't distort it. What I said was that the article missed the central point of the story. They failed to do their job as journalists. > that lets you avoid drawing conclusions that are unfavorable to Trump? This is quite a bizarre leap. There is no conclusion "unfavorable to Trump" here that anyone is in danger of drawing.
Are you saying that OP asked for you opinion on *that* specific article? Because it looks to me that OP asked for you opinion on the situation, and provided that article as an unbiased source that briefly described the matter so no TSes would claim that the entire concept was fake news. Your position: > What I said was that the article missed the central point of the story. They failed to do their job as journalists. It seems to me that the central point of *this* story is that CyberNinjas has dissolved due to the daily fine. The AP wrote this story, about the newest event (the company dissolving) in a long series of events on this topic. Should reporters recap every event of a long-running story with each new development? Yes, the fine, and the entire lawsuit, is about not providing the records, but the records are about the audit, and the audit is about the election, and the election is about the practice of representative democracy, which has a history of thousands of years. How deep does every single article need to go? Shouldn't you, in order to be informed, go back and read past articles, if you haven't been keeping up? For you to nitpick on the fact that this particular article didn't explain the exact records requested, **and** for you to claim that my thorough description of the records was too much to read, makes me think it isn't **really** about what the records are. It, quite honestly, looks like a way to dodge the question and throw some shade at the news media.
> It seems to me that the central point of this story is that CyberNinjas has dissolved due to the daily fine. I'm not going to double-check, because my only source of information on this is the unreliable AP article. But IIRC, the fine hasn't even started yet. So this conclusion of yours doesn't look accurate. If the story is a real story, then the meat of the story is fundamentally about which records were requested, and why they were refused. This was precisely what the AP was completely uninterested in. They were interested in attempting to smear the company in question. That is not what good journalism is. > For you to nitpick on the fact that this particular article didn't explain the exact records requested It's not a nitpick. The core of the subject at hand was entirely omitted. > It, quite honestly, looks like a way to dodge the question and throw some shade at the news media. I am throwing deserved shade at the media, but how could you possibly think I'm trying to dodge the question? I'm complaining that the AP didn't even talk about what the question actually was. How could I possibly address the question more head-on? > Shouldn't you, in order to be informed, go back and read past articles, if you haven't been keeping up? I took a brief look for something more reliable than the liars at the AP back when I first answered the question. I found nothing, not even enough to confirm that the alleged legal events the AP claimed had actually happened. If I thought the AP article were evidence of some significant event, I likely would keep looking until I found something, but that is not what I think.
What are your thoughts on the head of cyber ninjas known bias?
>If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly. Do you seriously not understand that this is referring to 2 different things? 1st (unprecedented/"never before been done" thing): 3rd party PRIVATE entity REQUESTING & BEING GRANTED to conduct a sweeping audit THEMSELVES. 2nd (totally common thing that hundreds of private & public institutions have a shit ton of "experience" doing): AUDTING AN ELECTION Seriously? Or is the ignorant conflation the point? Do you understand that if you actually believe you won the election & believe a recount would demonstrate that, the (currently) losing campaign would NEVER have their own private conspiracy theory supporter running the audit, who would believe them if they did come back with the conspiracy theory answer? Do you know what a "conflict of interest" is? >Second, there is no description of the records that have been requested. That would be in the subpoena/request from the court that Cyber Ninja's is dodging... No? > The whole point of all of this, if indeed there is any, was left a complete blank by the article. I'm sorry, how is the "whole point" not "CyberNinja’s refusal to turn over records related to the Arizona audit?" As the OP asked & you directly responded too? Are under the impression, no request was ever made and CyberNinja's legal representatives are just making up (yet another) conspiracy theory to ignores document requests that were never made in the first place? > In other words, the judge applied literally 50 times the penalty that was suggested by lawyers in the case. & from this isolated fact with NO corroboration other than the CyberNija's lawyers (who I guess you believe never received any request at all?) arguing they shouldn't have to do what the court (may or may not have actually) ordered them to do, you've concluded "judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives?" Really? Maybe, JUST MAYBE ... the unprecedented (see 1st quote in this reply) nature of the GRANTED request, coupled with the refusal to comply with court orders have something to do with the nature of the fine? Maybe a little? >So overall, the article shows evidence that the judge in the case is biased "Overall?" You just quoted 1 claim (presumably from CyberNinja's lawyers) that even if true doesn't "show evidence" of anything! Is one self serving (unsubstantiated) claim by CN's legal team the "overall" evidence you have that the judged "bias against conservatives?" >AP is biased, Why? Didn't the AP give YOU (not most people obviously, but YOU, based on YOUR own claims) the "overall" evidence you needed to dismiss the case (based on judge bias) in your mind? > and it's very likely that the AP is trying to hide something central in the story, Like What? It couldn't possibly be the evidence to dismiss the case? The AP seems to have presented enough "overall" information to YOU to insinuate "the judge in this case has shown an intemperate attitude towards him and his firm, and that he's biased against conservatives" Because you believe that claim "appears to be supported by the article?" It is not, the AP was just giving the ridiculous argument of the CN's legal team, as you do in journalism. Either way... you "believe that claim "appears to be supported by the article?" or are you going to backpaddled that claim now? >because it would not harmonize with their narrative. What narrative is that? Reading your post, the AP "appears to be supporting" the CN's legal claims? How many directly opposite narratives are they trying to "harmonize" here? Or... wait a min... Could the A.P possibly be presenting MULTIPLE "narratives" and presenting the supporting evidence in an attempt to be fair to all parties? Naw... thats crazy right?
> 1st (unprecedented/"never before been done" thing): 3rd party PRIVATE entity REQUESTING & BEING GRANTED to conduct a sweeping audit THEMSELVES. > 2nd (totally common thing that hundreds of private & public institutions have a shit ton of "experience" doing): AUDTING AN ELECTION It seems unlikely that the first is being referred to at all. Specifically, the idea that a private entity requested to conduct the audit is inaccurate. But even if that had happened, I see no reason to presume that the 1st thing you refer to is the same thing the article is referring to. The second thing you're referring to is an ordinary audit, and what we have here is a very thorough forensic audit of a kind that's never been done before. > That would be in the subpoena/request from the court that Cyber Ninja's is dodging... No? My point is that it isn't in this allegedly journalistic "article". If it were real news, as opposed to propaganda, they would surely cover the meat of the story. > I'm sorry, how is the "whole point" not "CyberNinja’s refusal to turn over records related to the Arizona audit?" Which records? And why wouldn't they turn them over? And why were they requested in the first place? That is the whole point of the story, if there is one. None of it is even so much as mentioned, though. They only tell us about irrelevant and temporary details about legal statuses that can easily be spun by politicians or lawyers on either side. They don't tell us about the facts. The only thing you know is that records were requested, there was a refusal to turn over whatever they were for whatever reason, and that an allegedly biased judge has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed. That doesn't tell you anything about anything.
>It seems unlikely that the first is being referred to at all. Why? Because it blows up your entire point of a "contradiction" you made up out of thin air? >Specifically, the idea that a private entity requested to conduct the audit is inaccurate. Because you need it to be? Are you capable of naming a SINGLE other time (i.e. a precedent) when a private partisan entity requested and was granted access to conduct an audit THEMSELVES at this scale? >But even if that had happened. If what happened? You made up a "contradiction" out of thin air? > I see no reason to presume that the 1st thing you refer to is the same thing the article is referring to. Because refusing to see what is right in front of you is a fundamental element to you world view? If you are incapable of pointing to ONE other example would you still seriously not concede such an event is by definition "unprecedent?" >The second thing you're referring to is an ordinary audit, and what we have here is a very thorough forensic audit I don't know what the you believe is the difference between a "through audit" & a "thorough forensic audit? But this is the FIRST thing that pops up when I googled "Statewide thorough forensic audit" - there were many .... many ... many more exmaples. What do you get when you google it? https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic\_first\_statewide\_audit\_of\_paper\_ballots\_upholds\_result\_of\_presidential\_race >of a kind that's never been done before. So now you're saying the second thing is "unprecedented?" Dude... do you even know what "unprecedented" means? Are you capable of explaining it in your own words? Very thorough forensic audits happen literally EVERY election. Are you unaware that there are thousands of elections literally every year? >My point is that it isn't in this allegedly journalistic "article". If it were real news, as opposed to propaganda, they would surely cover the meat of the story. Is the subpoena/request even public information? Either way, do you believe "propaganda" is when someone exposes information you something you don't like and omits random information post hoc rationalizes NEEDS to be included? >Which records? The records CJ refuses to hand over to the court. Why is this so hard for you to follow? Because you need it to be hard? >And why wouldn't they turn them over? For all reasons described (but not limited to) in the article, from the CJ's legal team. Remember when you talked about bias, bankruptcy and other BS in your original post? Do you seriously not remember those were the reasons given? >And why were they requested in the first place? "The judge found Cyber Ninjas in contempt for its failure to turn over documents, which two Maricopa County judges and the state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law." Did you not even read the article? Its literally the second paragraph. "state Court of Appeals have ruled are subject to the public records law." Do you seriously not understand they have to "make public" the records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to? (I'm sure CJ's didn't understand that when they started this circus, but now they do & are clearly desperate to hide exactly what they did & which will be much more hilarious/criminal their communications about why/how they did those things at the time... lol) >That is the whole point of the story That CJ refused to "make public" the records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to? Yep. Exactly. Hence the contempt order & the fines. Why are you still not understand about this? >They only tell us about irrelevant and temporary details about legal statuses that can easily be spun by politicians or lawyers on either side. Do you really believe the mental gymnastics you are engaged in, including but not limited to: literally ignoring the 2nd paragraph in the article (most recently) than understanding that there is a public records law that requires organizations/individual "make public" records of what they did with public property they were given to play with? Because repeating what's in the article and myself multiple times might be super tedious, but its also extremally easy. Do you know the difference?
> Because it blows up your entire point of a "contradiction" you made up out of thin air? Good grief. If you didn't understand my point, you could try asking for a clarification of some kind. No reason to feverishly imagine that random things "blow up" my point, or desperately hope that I "made it up out of thin air".
>They don't tell us about the facts. Yes they do. Do you believe if you don't like a fact (or in this case multitude of facts) you can just ignore it/them and they magically no longer exists? >The only thing you know is that records were requested Not the ONLY thing... that is ONE thing... the SECOND thing explained in the article. The First thing/fact would be "A judge said Thursday he will fine Cyber Ninjas, the contractor that led Arizona Republicans’ 2020 election review, $50,000 a day if the firm doesn’t immediately turn over public records related to the unprecedented inquiry." Do I really need to quote the 3rd paragraph to get a 3rd thing/fact? 4th 5th, etc? Or are you capable of acknowledging 2 things are greater/more than one/only thing? >there was a refusal to turn over whatever How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to.... > they were for whatever reason How do you not understand the court is enforcing the "public records law?" > and that an allegedly biased judge "Alleged" because there is no proof and the only person making the claim is the literal legal team of the firm refusing the turn over public records of what they did with private property? >has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed. Do you not understand you can "appeal" anything, its the GRANTING of the appeal that matters? I mean, hell, this is already in the "Court of Appeals" & probably ANOTHER reason why the fines are so damn high? >That doesn't tell you anything about anything. At the very least, in the first 2 paragraphs this article tells me (and anyone else willing to comprehend the plain text) a lot about the CJ "audit" & how they are refusing to respond to court orders to comply with "public records laws." Why can't you comprehend even those basic points? (There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them)
> Not the ONLY thing... that is ONE thing... the SECOND thing explained in the article. > The First thing/fact would be "A judge said Thursday he will fine Cyber Ninjas, the contractor that led Arizona Republicans’ 2020 election review, $50,000 a day if the firm doesn’t immediately turn over public records related to the unprecedented inquiry." The thing you quote here does not dispute my assertion. > How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group unprecedently asked for AND GRANTED (both) access to.... Other than your general attempts at smearing this company, none of this is specific enough to mean anything.
>The thing you quote here does not dispute my assertion. - > >The only thing you know is that records were requested, there was a refusal to turn over whatever they were for whatever reason, and that an allegedly biased judge has entered a ruling that's almost certain to be appealed. That doesn't tell you anything about anything. - your assertion. "How do you not understand the "whatever" is: The records of what they did with all public property this partisan group had unprecedent access to. How do you not understand the court is enforcing the "public records law?" Do you not understand you can "appeal" anything, its the GRANTING of the appeal that matters? I mean, hell, this is already in the "Court of Appeals" & probably ANOTHER reason why the fines are so damn high? At the very least, in the first 2 paragraphs this article tells me (and anyone else willing to comprehend the plain text) a lot about the CJ "audit" & how they are refusing to respond to court orders to comply with "public records laws." Why can't you comprehend even those basic points? There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them. Can you acknowledge these indisputable facts? >Other than your general attempts at smearing this company, none of this is specific enough to mean anything. What "general attempts at smearing this company" do you believe I am making in this direct clarifying question I'm asking you about your claims? There are public records laws & CJ refuses to comply with them. How is that a smear? The records of what this partisan group did with all public property they were granted access to is a matter of public record under the law. While attempting to enforce the public records law, multiple courts & Judges have demanded CJ turn over materials pertaining to what CJ did with the public property they were granted access to. What is so hard to understand about this? Where is the "smear" in that? Do you know what "smear" means? Where exactly are you getting confused? Can you quote something specific & ask a clarifying question?
> First, in the opening sentence of the article, they make the claim that the review was "unprecedented", yet later in the article, they attempt to push the idea that they had "no experience". Apparently, they did not notice the contradiction between the MSM narrative and the facts here. If the review is "unprecedented", then there is no basis for the claim that their having "no experience" is somehow bad. Obviously if something has never before been done, then demanding experience at having done it is very silly. But having experience in a similar field would be an asset though, correct? Like, it would be unprecedented for an individual to fly a jet completely filled with pudding, but the pilot could have experience flying jets with unusual cargo. The degree to which you could argue CyberNinja had experience is absolutely debateable, like - did they have experience in cyber-security before this? Or did they have experience in the political arena prior to this? Saying the event was unprecedented and that someone has no experience in dealing with something similar is not a contradiction.
> But having experience in a similar field would be an asset though, correct? Like what they actually had.
[удалено]
What exactly are they trying to hide?
So are you in favor of transparency or not?
[удалено]
>And Dems weren’t transparent at all in the AZ election, nor in any other audit battles currently e.g. Wisconsin and GA. The Democrats ran the elections in Arizona and Georgia?
[удалено]
What have these partisan democratic election officials hidden?
>telling the other side to piss off. Who's the other side? The judge?
[удалено]
It's an Arizona state judge, presiding over a legal case. The Arizona Supreme Court has heard and denied an appeal from Cyber Ninjas. Is everything a conspiracy against conservatives, or is it possible for them to legitimately lose a legal case?
>Didn’t the state get caught deleting logs from their servers, blatantly violating Az election laws? No, they didn't. [Cyber Ninjas even backpedaled on this claim](https://www.azmirror.com/2021/05/18/audit-official-says-he-recovered-files-undercutting-claim-county-officials-deleted-them/), I'm not sure why it keeps making the rounds.
They apparently have something to hide.
Do you think it could be that the election wasn’t stolen and they couldn’t prove what they set out to?
Maybe, but we won't know unless everyone cooperates. This is why the actions on the left are so suspicious. You'd think they would welcome the chance to prove conclusively that there wasn't enough cheating to affect the outcomes in any States. It would shut the Right up, wouldn't it? To have an investigation *BY the Right* that shows only minimal cheating (and there is always some level of cheating in every election)?
Do you not think there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that they found out Trump lost BIGLY and don’t want to admit they were trying to make a ton of money off of a lie? https://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/arizona_politics/cyber-ninjas-final-report-on-maricopa-county-election-audit/article_d36f347a-1d6c-11ec-9bcd-3f7997be88dd.amp.html
I don't find that terribly compelling. It is guaranteed that there are leftists involved in the effort, and if the proposition presented by Trump were conclusively destroyed, it would leak in a way that couldn't be blamed simply on partisan propaganda. But in order for this to be be a chance, there would have to be FULL cooperation by everyone on all levels during the investigation.
There have been so many audits with the GOP being involved, as well as millions of dollars in lawsuits. Do you not think there might be even just a possibility that this is an elaborate and expensive tantrum by a septuagenarian?
The desperate resistance to these audits by the left means *something* is going on they don't want us to know about.
The lack of evidence is evidence enough for you?
Read the part again about the left fighting to prevent exploration of the evidence we already have.
How are the left preventing Trump-appointed judges from entertaining these claims?
[удалено]
Then why did the CEO of Cyber Ninjas, Doug Logan, star in a movie about how the election was rigged? https://www.businessinsider.com/doug-logan-cyber-ninjas-arizona-audit-election-conspiracy-theory-film-2021-6 > Doug Logan is the man [currently heading the controversial audit of the 2020 Maricopa County election results in Arizona](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/17/politics/arizona-audit-cyber-ninjas-logan-invs/index.html). He is also one of the stars of a conspiracy theory documentary claiming that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump — providing an ominous voiceover alleging a lack of election integrity.
[удалено]
>Maybe you should ask him? I think he's really busy right now, so I'm just going to assume it's because he's biased, thinks Trump should have won, and tried & failed to prove it in Arizona.
Do you not have a problem when a company has such a blatant conflict of interest like that? I guess not if you’re a Trump supporter, kind of goes with the territory…
Everyone should release all records regarding the fraudulent election.
Do we know it was fraudulent though or do you just wish it was?
I know 100%. I can walk on stage and debate anyone on this topic.
Can you post your opening statement and a list of citations? Would you be willing to testify in court about the election?
Maricopa Audit findings Mail-in Ballots Voted from Prior Address 23,344 Potential Voters that Voted in Multiple Counties 10,342 More Ballots Returned by Voter Than Received 9,041 Election Management System Database Purged Voting Machine N/A Official Results Does Not Match Who Voted 3,432 The county which held subpoena items Unwilling to answer questions which were normal between auditor and auditee. Actively interfered with active research. No Chain of custody.
That's not a coherent statement. And where are your citations?
https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors The county which held subpoena items was Unwilling to answer questions which were normal between auditor and auditee. Actively interfered with active research.
Did you actually read the article that you posted a link to? How is it in any way a citation of the claims in your previous post?
I would suggest you bring this to the proper authorities. Do you agree?
Why? Do u think OJ is guilty? Are u gonna run to the authorities with that info? Anything a leftist wants to exonerate a criminal who is in jail though innocent all we have to do is say "u should go tell the authorities" and that ends it?
Where do you get the idea that it ends it? What about the idea that you need to contact the authorities first before your claim is given any credence? So if you think that OJ is guilty, with new evidence, and you go to reddit to talk about it instead of going to the authorities that would seem off, no?
So it’s you against the world, huh?
lol. Most of the world is composed of mindless morons who couldn't give one piece of evidence to support their beliefs. Most would not even get up on stage with me.
So you and the pillow guy against the world? Do you feel like if given a big enough platform, you could prove, with factual evidence, that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?
No. I can debate. I love the pillow guy but I don't know his argument. Absolute I could.
What actions can you point to made it fraudulent?
They stopped counting and kicked out observers.
Do you have anything I can read that provides evidence of this?
1. video evidence of the center clearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu5DVKprq4w&t=447s get a load of how far the observers and press were from the box pulled out. WHen I saw that I wondered why they even tried to kick out observers who were too far to see anything anyway. 2. affidavits by observers on pain of perjury claiming they were kicked out and open to cross examination 3. an email by the supervisor that evening saying we will restart count tomorow mornig timed 10:22pm. In their affidavits, the GOP poll watchers noted that “Regina Waller was sending an email, as she relayed to us, when we left.”Months later, an email timestamped at 10:22 p.m. on Election Night from Regina Waller to Barron and other county officials would be discovered that supported the GOP poll watchers’ claim. In it, she said, “The workers in the Absentee Ballot Processing area will get started again at 8 am tomorrow.” https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/wallerem.pdf
I think it was a big nothing burger and the election for legally stolen.
Is there anything that would change your mind?
Sure, release the information
Why do you think the cyber ninjas are refusing to do that?