Democrats SUE to stop Arizona Senate from forensic audit of 2020 election

[struth]

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

Audits have to comply with law. Judges ensure this is the case.

if the case is brought to them...the court didn’t find anything illegal about this audit. The dems djdnt even raise the issue

 

[jc456]

no, no, you are the all knowing why don't you know the law on what election officials are supposed to do? my job isn't to educate you. educate yourself on election law.

You made the accusation. Put up or shut up.

I made what accusation?

 

[jc456]

... no one's buying it anymore, and most never did.

Your pretense of being authorized to speak for everyone betrays your insecurity.

Try to summon the testicular fortitude to express your difference without pretending that you are being backed by a mob.

The citizen's getting hit with money coming out of their hard earned pockets is going to be impossible to defend. Can't make the idiocy up, but there it is right there in front of everyone to see and feel.

Your "everyone" recourse is desperate. Have the temerity to express your personal views without relying on hoards of anonymous confections.

The popularly-elected President remains popular by advocating for popular legislation. Democratic self-governance is thusly served.

If you have any credible public surveys that indicate otherwise, please provide links to them.

the irony

 

[jc456]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

or throw it out like what happened in every complaint filed.

 

[colfax_m]

I made what accusation?

Honestly, if you guys can't remember what you typed 10 minutes ago, this conversation is impossible.

election officials are to follow election law on election day. why didn't that happen? wouldn't need this audit had the law been followed the night of the election.

 

[colfax_m]

if the case is brought to them...the court didn’t find anything illegal about this audit. The dems djdnt even raise the issue

Of course they did. The Democratic party has been in litigation about the audit from the beginning.

 

[jc456]

I made what accusation?

Honestly, if you guys can't remember what you typed 10 minutes ago, this conversation is impossible.

election officials are to follow election law on election day. why didn't that happen? wouldn't need this audit had the law been followed the night of the election.

that you don't know election laws for officials? Not my issue.

 

[struth]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

or throw it out like what happened in every complaint filed.

i have no problem with them hearing the case or granting the injunction...pending the dems paid the folks...they didn’t so the court ordered it moving forward.

i have no problem with the court hearing case involving the legislature they aren’t above rhe law

 

[jc456]

if the case is brought to them...the court didn’t find anything illegal about this audit. The dems djdnt even raise the issue

Of course they did. The Democratic party has been in litigation about the audit from the beginning.

what's their issue? Are you saying the repubs didn't have a right to challenge?

 

[progressive hunter]

and none of them have applied to your claims,, well maybe one or two, but not today for sure

Many have.

I guess you did provide some local network coverage...

...which also backed up my statement and proved you were a liar.

So thanks for that.

HUH??

 

[progressive hunter]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

no they dont,,

 

[jc456]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

or throw it out like what happened in every complaint filed.

i have no problem with them hearing the case or granting the injunction...pending the dems paid the folks...they didn’t so the court ordered it moving forward.

i have no problem with the court hearing case involving the legislature they aren’t above rhe law

but, the ballots are their peoples ballots and they can render an audit, it is part of their purview.

 

[jc456]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

no they dont,,

exactly, I just told him that. all of the challenge cases were dismissed without prejudice. It's really quite simple.

 

[colfax_m]

what's their issue? Are you saying the repubs didn't have a right to challenge?

Challenges by law were to happen a long time ago. Those challenges failed.

This is an audit ordered under the subpoena power of the State Senate, which is basically outside the regular challenges. Still, the laws about how ballots are to be handled need to comply with the law and the agency doing the audit has been extremely cagey about what their policies and procedures are.

 

[struth]

if the case is brought to them...the court didn’t find anything illegal about this audit. The dems djdnt even raise the issue

Of course they did. The Democratic party has been in litigation about the audit from the beginning.

nah they just didn’t want the audit to happen...hence the injunction...if they really cared they would have followed the order and stoped the audit, they didn’t. It was merely an attempt to delay

 

[colfax_m]

i have no problem with the court hearing case involving the legislature they aren’t above rhe law

Apparently the legislature thinks they're above the law because their response to the court is that they don't have jurisdiction.

 

[struth]

The judges refused to hear the evidence.

Judges heard all properly submitted evidence. Don’t lie. But you also just said they never had the evidence until now. Try to be a little more consistent

How is a ballot proven to be illegal not evidence?

When you claim it’s proven but in reality it’s fine and you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yeah, that was the very problem. Courts would dismiss cases before adequate time for discovery.

Why are the Democrats trying so hard to hide the audit results?

The courts do not function as grand juries. Why are Republicans trying to hide the methods?

And courts should not interfere with the legislative branch. It is their decision to do the audit not the courts.

well the court has to act when a case is brought to them.

no they dont,,

sure they do.

 

[colfax_m]

nah they just didn’t want the audit to happen...hence the injunction...if they really cared they would have followed the order and stoped the audit, they didn’t. It was merely an attempt to delay

Probably don't want the audit to happen, but I doubt the court cases would have been as pressed had the audit proceed in a more rational basis with a firm doing the audit that isn't run by a crazy Trump supporter.

 

[struth]

nah they just didn’t want the audit to happen...hence the injunction...if they really cared they would have followed the order and stoped the audit, they didn’t. It was merely an attempt to delay

Probably don't want the audit to happen, but I doubt the court cases would have been as pressed had the audit proceed in a more rational basis with a firm doing the audit that isn't run by a crazy Trump supporter.

the court had no issue with the firm.

 

[colfax_m]

the court had no issue with the firm.

Not specifically with the firm but it did take issue with some of the policies, which is an outgrowth of the firm's inexperience.