6 ms·

What's the next legal step if they do "find" discrepancies? A court challenge? I imagine no fool judge would accept a priavely-funded politically-backed organiz

What's the next legal step if they do "find" discrepancies? A court challenge? I imagine no fool judge would accept a priavely-funded politically-backed organization's conclusions over that of the legal audit precedent. I'm having trouble seeing a route that doesn't involve asking people to ignore the law and put someone unelected into power.

rejectedandsad 5y ago
The latter is exactly what they want. The former President has literally said he expects to be “reinstated as President” in august
- velox_io 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this, as far as I can tell this is hearsay?
  - AaronFriel 5y ago
    Maggie Haberman, New York Times, one of the most reliable sources on Trump related news[1]: https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051 https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051 [1] regardless of one's other beliefs about access journalism, which if you are replying to this because I cited Haberman, I likely agree with.
    - methodiosmel 5y ago
      Haberman is not a reliable source.
  - AaronFriel 5y ago
    Another collection of sources: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-ri...
fallingknife 5y ago
If judges don't listen to private groups challenging the government, then we are in a world of trouble. The judge will ask them to prove it, though.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I believe they already have: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dominion-sues-fox-news-for-1-6-billion-for-turning-flame-of-post-election-lies-into-a-forest-fire/ar-BB1eZWU8 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dominion-sues-fox-ne...
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  This is actually a good counterpoint. I would expect a good court battle then. But the legal precedent allows third parties, observers, etc, in a regular recount.
- tzs 5y ago
  > The judge will ask them to prove it, though. It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.
iratic0 5y ago
One way to show evidence of audit tampering is to watch the live feed and report on any suspicious behaviour: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/
- lettergram 5y ago
  https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90ed08e3549737e159421055b20750ccc8bb0248.mp4 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... ^ You can listen to their findings and explanations. They dont' expect anything besides improving elections for the future; this is per the AZ senate.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  What does this prove? It's quite literally impossible to see what any of them are doing.
  - iratic0 5y ago
    If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Ah, so kinda like the cameras they had in the offices [0] when they counted the ballots the first time? [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-trump-lawsuit-over-counting-of-michigan-ballots/ar-BB1aJhmG https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-tru...
    - krapp 5y ago
      >If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly. Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well? Now at least we know which side you're on.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
It's entirely uncharted territory. There is absolutely no precedent for this. People can cite elections being invalidated for lower positions, but nothing on the level of the Presidency. A do-over for something like state senate seat is no big deal, but a new presidential election is unthinkable and probably unconstitutional as well. Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War". So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.
procombo 5y ago
They are not looking to overturn presidential results. Or even local results. All this "middle talk" is just optics. It makes for good coverage. If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections. If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot. The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.
CommieBobDole 5y ago
There is no legal path that leads from this audit to a change in the election results; the election is over, the results are certified, the electors have voted, etc. The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever. Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.

rejectedandsad 5y ago

The latter is exactly what they want. The former President has literally said he expects to be “reinstated as President” in august

velox_io 5y ago
Do you have a source for this, as far as I can tell this is hearsay?
- AaronFriel 5y ago
  Maggie Haberman, New York Times, one of the most reliable sources on Trump related news[1]: https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051 https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051 [1] regardless of one's other beliefs about access journalism, which if you are replying to this because I cited Haberman, I likely agree with.
  - methodiosmel 5y ago
    Haberman is not a reliable source.
- AaronFriel 5y ago
  Another collection of sources: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-ri...

fallingknife 5y ago

If judges don't listen to private groups challenging the government, then we are in a world of trouble. The judge will ask them to prove it, though.

smoldesu 5y ago
I believe they already have: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dominion-sues-fox-news-for-1-6-billion-for-turning-flame-of-post-election-lies-into-a-forest-fire/ar-BB1eZWU8 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dominion-sues-fox-ne...
jvanderbot 5y ago
This is actually a good counterpoint. I would expect a good court battle then. But the legal precedent allows third parties, observers, etc, in a regular recount.
tzs 5y ago
> The judge will ask them to prove it, though. It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.

iratic0 5y ago

One way to show evidence of audit tampering is to watch the live feed and report on any suspicious behaviour: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/

lettergram 5y ago
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90ed08e3549737e159421055b20750ccc8bb0248.mp4 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... ^ You can listen to their findings and explanations. They dont' expect anything besides improving elections for the future; this is per the AZ senate.
smoldesu 5y ago
What does this prove? It's quite literally impossible to see what any of them are doing.
- iratic0 5y ago
  If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Ah, so kinda like the cameras they had in the offices [0] when they counted the ballots the first time? [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-trump-lawsuit-over-counting-of-michigan-ballots/ar-BB1aJhmG https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-tru...
  - krapp 5y ago
    >If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly. Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well? Now at least we know which side you're on.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

It's entirely uncharted territory. There is absolutely no precedent for this. People can cite elections being invalidated for lower positions, but nothing on the level of the Presidency. A do-over for something like state senate seat is no big deal, but a new presidential election is unthinkable and probably unconstitutional as well. Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War". So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.

procombo 5y ago

They are not looking to overturn presidential results. Or even local results. All this "middle talk" is just optics. It makes for good coverage. If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections. If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot. The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.

CommieBobDole 5y ago

There is no legal path that leads from this audit to a change in the election results; the election is over, the results are certified, the electors have voted, etc. The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever. Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.