Not sure if this link will work for everyone, but it appears the @AZSenateGOP's media event is up and running. Follow here: azleg.gov/videoplayer/?c…
@AZSenateGOP No one was allowed to attend in person, so sorry to those who can't watch the feed reliably (me included -- it's cut in and out several times already.)
.@AZSenateDems weren't allowed in either. This isn't your usual "hearing" at the #azleg. There's no specific committee hosting this, just Senate President @FannKfann and Judiciary Chair @votewarren.
.@votewarren asks why this new election review is so important, so DIFFERENT from the many checks and balances already in following the election.
Logan says the other audits were focused on "software," as well as a logic and accuracy testing.
Logan then says @AZSenateGOP's audit is focused on results -- were the results accurate?
That's exactly what the logic and accuracy test does. It determines: Did the system count votes accurately? A partial hand count helped confirm that.
Ken Bennett, @FannKfann's liaison, says there's a misunderstanding about what "chain of custody" docs the Senate has demanded from the county.
Bennett says they want a record of what happened to the ballots between Nov. 3, election day, and April 22.
This hits different knowing that the bipartisan Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and other county officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, unanimously blasted the @AZSenateGOP audit yesterday.
Today's event features just two GOP state senators.
A big part of this @AZSenateGOP event has been framing Maricopa County officials as reneging on promises -- for example, to turn over routers.
Bennett has said multiple times the county assured him in April the routers would be turned over. The county has not...
...The county has said it'd be a dramatic security risk, since those routers direct traffic across dozens of county agencies, including @maricopacounty sheriff's department.
.@maricopacounty is addressing some questions from the @AZSenateGOP event in real time. I'll try to post their updates.
First answer on chain of custody from Election Day to April 22, when the ballots were delivered to the Coliseum.
.@FannKfann and others expressing frustration because @maricopacounty officials 'won't help.' The county took the position that they'd comply with the subpoena, but wouldn't participate in the Senate's election review.
And @maricopacounty officials now say that some of the questions raised by @AZSenateGOP's private firms -- being aired at this quasi-public hearing -- just show that those firms lack election experience. For example:
This sums up well the general vibe/divide of the last two days... Two groups of elected officials, some from @maricopacounty, some from @AZSenateGOP, talking past one another and pushing competing narratives about this controversial election review.
The CyFIR founder is now referring to information the county "did not provide us" that could satisfy certain questions they have. I'm fairly certain the county would say, 'you didn't subpoena that.'
.@FannKfann now asking why this isn't done yet. The contract she signed with Cyber Ninjas expected it would be finished last week. When can we "button this up," Fann asks?
"By the end of June," according to Cyber Ninjas' Doug Logan.
Ending with a plea from Cyber Ninjas Doug Logan and CyFIR's Ben Cotton for admin passwords to Dominion Voting machines.
Only Dominion's contractors have those, and the company has already told the firms/@AZSenateGOP to go pound sand.
Closing comments from @votewarren, who praises this as the first "fully forensic" audit. Petersen says this will set a precedent and suggests it'll be replicated elsewhere.
@FannKfann, too, says she's been contacted from other states who say @AZSenateGOP is laying the groundwork for similar election reviews elsewhere throughout the country.
.@FannKfann laments all the extra costs for security at Veterans Memorial Coliseum. If the Senate's paying more then the $150K contract signed with Cyber Ninjas, I know a bunch of Arizona reporters who'd love to know how much...
@FannKfann Here's the relevant section of the indemnification agreement, signed by Fann on April 20, just before @maricopacounty turned over the materials she subpoenaed:
Arizona Republican elected officials have reacted to the siege at the U.S. Capitol by blaming, and this is not a comprehensive list, Democrats, Doug Ducey, other Republicans, Antifa, and Congress.
Here's a look back at the last 24 hours in tweets...
In this tweet, @RepGosar repeats baseless allegations that the presidential election was stolen and hints that leftists maybe had a role in the mob?
.@RepGosar reaction to the mob varied, depending on what platform you follow him on. @nickmartin points out the discrepancy between Gosar on Twitter and Gosar on conservative-friendly Parler.
Kory Langhofer, attorney for the Trump campaign, acknowledges that the number of overvotes their case would address "may not make a difference" in the race their interested in: @realDonaldTrump's re-election.
@realDonaldTrump An attorney for @katiehobbs said, and this was fuzzy so I'm not 100% sure, that there aren't a lot of overvotes at stake...
She said an exact number but I couldn't make it out.
Wow OK the numbers were repeated by Thomas Liddy, the atty for Maricopa County:
155,850 votes were cast on election.
Tabulation machines identified just 180 overvotes in the presidential race.
Attorneys withdrew that case on Saturday. But since then they've tried to get the case merged with the Trump campaign's new complaint about "overvotes."
BUT, at a hearing happening now, the judge is skeptical of allowing that...
The timeline is interesting. HOURS AFTER attorneys for the Sharpie plaintiffs withdrew their case, the Trump campaign filed a complaint about overvotes.
The Sharpie attorneys then filed a motion to transfer with the judge handling the Sharpie case.
That judge denied it.
Now the Sharpie plaintiffs have filed a motion to intervene in the Trump campaign's "overvote" case.
There's a different judge overseeing this case. He sounds skeptical of allowing intervention given that the plaintiffs had scheduled hearings in the original case, but gave up.