*canvassed two precincts fully & large sections of precincts throughout the county. Interviewed more voters than 75% of towns/cities in America have residents. Sample falls within 95% scientific accuracy for extrapolations. (1/5)
1) Votes Lost of Stolen - not recorded at county level - 173,104 - suggests a large swap-out, discarding, or over-scrutinization of votes, perhaps why it took 10 days to finalize election in Arizona? Similar findings from Matt Braynard's studies in AZ. (2/5)
2) Ghost (Phantom) votes - non-existent voters with votes recorded - 96,389 - 1 out of 20 interviewed identified at least one phantom voter registered to their address.
3) Voting method does not match official record - Est. 30,000 (3/5)
Hats off to the Flagstaff community for keeping Flagstaff safe from flood damage. Thank you for my in-depth tour today where I saw firsthand the community spirit, incisiveness, professionalism, and true American spirit of neighbors helping neighbors. (1/4)
Special kudos to my mayor of Flagstaff Paul Deasy, the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona Department of Emergency Mgt (DEMA), the National Guard, Team Rubicon, United Way of Northern Arizona, Arizona Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps, American Conservation Experience, (2/4)
“There were 74,000 EV33 forms that did not have matching EV32s. EV33s are for received ballots, while EV32s are for sent ballots. This was brought up in the context of justifying why we should do canvassing, because the situation didn’t (1/5)
make any sense. Canvassing would give an explanation as to what was happening here, and if anything was wrong or if there is a good explanation for it. If Maricopa county officials were answering questions, as in a normal audit, they would’ve had an opportunity to explain. (2/5)
However, even if they’d give us an explanation, as auditors we would then need to validate if their response logically explained the situation. We are working to validate the claims by Maricopa county that they put out on Twitter. If they were to act professionally, these (3/5)
I have checked with my staff about the Orwellian Scottsdale Survey. Thankfully, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill that was signed into law back in 2016 which forced schools to ask parents for permission before completing surveys like this. There is a $500 (1/5)
fine against the violator for each occurrence. The Orwellian Scottsdale Survey is optional. To opt-out, I suggest parents send a letter ("Read Receipt" requested) to the school and teacher in writing that you want to opt-out of ALL surveys like this, to include this (2/5)
"2021-2022 Parental/Legal Guardian Consent to Participation in Social Emotional Behavior Screening''. That way, if the school district ever forces your child to fill out a survey without your consent, then you will have two examples of evidence for the lawsuit: (3/5)
Here are my notes from the #AZAudit today. I am only putting out new info and trying not to rehash previous info I have already released. Thank you Senator @AmandaChaseVA for coming. Hopefully, we were able to shine light on some techniques you can use in Virginia. (1/4)
Contributors to the AZ Audit
- Tens of thousands of donors donating $5-$50 apiece
- Help has come from VOICESandVOTES.org
- Help has come from FUNDtheAUDIT.org
- Over 2,000 vetted volunteers have volunteered so far
- Almost finished with counting the ballots
- Paper examination has accelerated.
- One day this week, an incredible 90,000 ballots were counted by 21 tables.
- As of 11 June, delegations will have visited from GA, NV, PA, VA, AK, CO, WA, MI (3/4)
Tour of AZ Audit with visiting PA delegation state senators Doug Mastriano, Col US Army (ret) and Cris Dush, MSgt USAF (ret) along with PA state rep Rob Kauffman (chair of PA House Judiciary Cte).
State senators Wendy Rogers R-Flagstaff, (1/13)
Sonny Borrelli R-Havasu
State reps Leo Biasiucci R-Havasu, Joe Chaplik R-Scottsdale, Jacqueline Parker R-Mesa
Cyber Ninjas is precisely what kind of firm to be able to lead this audit?
- They are an application security company, which has allowed a quick understanding on (2/13)
how election system applications work in detail.
- Their modus operandi is to perform Threat Modeling.
- That is: They figure out ways a system can be attacked.
- How to identify a threat and protect against it.
- They find what the artifacts are in order to prove (3/13)
Here are some of my takeaways from the audit yesterday:
Increase in capacity now:
From 17 to 32 paper inspection tables using microscopic cameras
From 20 to 44 counting tables (yellow, green, blue)
From 4 to 12 aggregation tables
The pace is picking up daily
More audit forensics are done each day
Theoretically, mail-in ballots should all be of the same type, composition, and fiber with little to no variance. So if variances ARE seen, there should be an explanation, if there is no explanation, then that is a gap.