3 ms·

Since the key fact in dispute is whether the machines were connected to the internet, wouldn't it follow for an auditor to check all routers through which they

Since the key fact in dispute is whether the machines were connected to the internet, wouldn't it follow for an auditor to check all routers through which they could have connected to the internet. Seems like the exact thing a forensic audit should check. Since this is going through the courts, and in front of the judge. The judge will ultimately decide if the county is ignoring orders and impose sanctions. Ultimately, the judge could order a bailiff to seize the routers if they find the county non complaint. Also since the states run their own elections and the Senate had broad oversight rights, the judge so far has ruled against the county at every step. The county is just delaying things really.

missblit 5y ago
The subpoena is not a judicial subpoena at this point but a senate subpoena, that's why the senate would need enough votes to enforce it. This is a bit confusing because there was a judge who decided the senate's first subpoena was valid [1], but that too was still a senate subpoena. They certainly could try to go to court to get an enforceable subpoena, if they do I'll make some popcorn. As for the routers my current position towards the AZ auditors is "put up or shut up". If the EMS really was connected to an external network then they must have some event logs somewhere showing an unexplainable MAC address or something; if they don't then asking for unrelated routers just feels like a fishing expedition. [1] https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/26/judge-says-maricopa-county-must-provide-2020-ballots-arizona-senate/6825892002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021...