On Maricopa…


by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

What did we learn Friday?

1. Maricopa claimed there were no duplicate mail-in ballots.  In fact there were far more duplicates than those required to change the outcome in the Presidential race.  That has now been established.  Either (1) Maricopa lied but actually de-duplicated the ballots (meaning the results stand) or Maricopa did not de-duplicate the mail-in envelopes and the results are impossible to validate because some 17,000 duplicate votes were cast.

2. Maricopa lied about their election management system never being connected to the Internet.  It has been conclusively and forensically established that indeed it was.  When it was is immaterial; the lie, standing alone, is enough.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

4.  One or more people intentionally destroyed security logs.  At least one such person has been positively identified.  That is a criminal act, standing alone, and must be prosecuted.

5. The databases were intentionally destroyed by one or more persons.  The person who did #4 either conspired with said person(s) who destroyed the databases, was the person who did so, or did so to cover up the act without knowing who committed the first act.  Whatever the facts on that linkage may be it was a deliberate, criminal act standing alone and must be prosecuted.

6. The so-called “auditors” hired by Maricopa are criminally incompetent or even worse, actively involved in the above.  They must be named and prosecuted.  Specifically, they failed to inspect the unallocated disk space on the EMS, a basic part of forensics as criminals often delete evidence of their activity.  Said material was still there, so had the “auditors” hired by Maricopa been competent they would have discovered it.

What was not proved was that Trump won.  But what was proved was that there is no honest assertion that can be made that either of the two Presidential candidates in serious contention won.  The margin of victory is within the margin of dispute and it has been proved that electronic records critical to validate what occurred throughout the election process were deliberately destroyed by persons(s) who had physical access to the systems in question, with at least one such person being allegedly identified by security camera footage.

There may well be more here — but what’s been discovered thus far and proved (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:

1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was not conducted in accordance with Federal Law.

2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are not able to be confirmed since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes it is impossible to identify them.  Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist.  We now know more than 17,000 in fact do exist and the envelopes still exist.  What we cannot prove one way or another is whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted.  We thus have no way to know who won.

3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis about the equipment never being connected to the Internet.

4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that destruction and identification of the person who did so.  This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.

5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was not recoverable and likely is not recoverable.

By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was falsely certified.

What’s the remedy for this?

That’s a separate debate — but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Finally, not only was their forensic computer person credible he displayed exactly the process that I, as a person skilled in the art and who has performed computer forensics, would utilize.  I found no fault in his procedures, his process and analysis.  Not did I find him to make a single unproved assertion of fact.  This is exactly what a professional is supposed to do in this field.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org