Arizona and Georgia Vote Recount: Beyond the Myths and Facts

Recently, there has been significant debate surrounding the 2020 presidential election, particularly in states like Arizona and Georgia. The outcome of the initial vote count has been contested by some, leading to calls for a vote recount. However, what is often misunderstood is the nature of these recounts and their actual findings.

Forensic Audit vs. Recount

It is important to clarify that the forensic audit conducted in Arizona was not a traditional recount but rather a comprehensive quality assessment. Unlike a recount, where votes are recounted multiple times to ensure accuracy, a forensic audit focuses on the integrity and legitimacy of each ballot.

Each individual ballot was examined multiple times: first by hand, then by machine, and finally another manual count just to ensure accuracy. However, the overall goal was not to determine the winner but to assess the ballots from a forensic or scientific perspective. The key areas of focus included:

Signature Verification: Checking if signatures were present and matched the voter's records. Ballot Integrity: Assessing the condition and type of the paper used for each ballot. Advanced Inspection: Using black light scanning to identify potential tampering. Data Analysis: Examining metadata and other data points to ensure ballot legitimacy.

Equipment and Data Deliberations

One of the most controversial aspects of the forensic audit has been the refusal of Democrats to provide critical election equipment and information. The belief is that if the equipment had been provided in a timely and transparent manner, it would have validated the results and proven the fairness of the election. However, Democrats have refused to hand over these tools, leading to suspicions of foul play.

It has also been noted that some files have been deleted, though there is still a substantial amount of data. Some of the files retrieved were corrupted, making it impossible to conduct a 100% accurate count. This raises questions about the integrity of the process and the claims of a corrupt system.

Some have speculated that the reluctance to provide equipment and the deletion of files were deliberate acts of obstruction. The argument goes that if the equipment and data had been provided, any allegations of fraud would have been disproven.

Given the actions taken, many believe that the refusal to cooperate and the deletion of files serve as a significant admission of guilt. The goal of winners asserting their victory through a transparent and open process is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Cyber Ninjas Recommendations

While the forensic audit did not declare a new winner, it did provide critical recommendations for future elections and how to improve security and transparency. These recommendations were aimed at:

Enhancing Security: Implementing stronger cybersecurity measures to protect electronic voting systems. Transparency: Providing greater access to election equipment and data for audits and scrutiny. Public Trust: Ensuring that all parts of the electoral process are open to public scrutiny and analysis.

The forensic audit revealed that there were tens of thousands of ballots that were deemed ineligible and should not have been counted in the election. This number is significant enough to alter the outcome in Arizona and potentially influence the overall result.

Despite these findings, the Cyber Ninjas did not declare a definitive winner. Their role was to examine and report on the quality and integrity of ballots, not to determine a final outcome.

In conclusion, the forensic audit in Arizona and Georgia was a comprehensive assessment aimed at ensuring the integrity of the election process. While it did not provide a definitive result, it did highlight the importance of transparency and security in elections. As we move forward, it is crucial to maintain a process that is fair, transparent, and trusted by all parties.