WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

734

https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit

Seems pretty thorough. I was just reading to get a feel for what the enemy is saying. I know watermarks are being checked and ballot folds but wouldn't fraud have showed up in the previous audit?

Asking for a friend

https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit Seems pretty thorough. I was just reading [this article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/arizonas-election-audit-is-a-trainwreck/618834/) to get a feel for what the enemy is saying. I know watermarks are being checked and ballot folds but wouldn't fraud have showed up in the previous audit? Asking for a friend

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt (edited )

It's word semantics. They did not audit. Calling it an audit is a purposeful lie. They recounted. That's not an audit. Legally they are very different activities.

A count simply counts what you have. An audit carefully reviews how you obtained the items of count and if it was legally permissible to include them.

For example, millions of ballots were poisoned outside chain of custody. Legally they cannot be counted. A recount recounted them.