Posted on 11/30/2023 7:23:58 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
Nothing corrodes public confidence quite like an obvious cover-up.
Having just bought a used car, I can tell you from first hand experience ... test driving them certainly had a corrosive effect on "consumer confidence" in several of them ... and a positive effect on "consumer confidence" in the car I eventually bought.
And that's exactly the effect this corrupt judge corruptly wishes to prevent ...
That is Really Super Dumb.
Kinda like there has been no court finding of 2020 election fraud since there has been no case allowed.
-fJRoberts-
Do not worry “your honor”, this election has had a MAJOR CORROSIVE EFFECT on the process.
Jackass
Any system that permits the vendors of the computers used to administer the “election” to keep secret ANY portion of the machines’ internal workings under the guise of “proprietary information” is a system that cannot and must not be trusted. The very notion is absurd. After 2020, it was clear from the testimony of many election officials that even they had no idea what was actually going on inside the “black box”, and they were in fact prohibited from even asking by the terms of the software license agreements attached to them. That is an absolute outrage. If computers are to be used at all in administering elections, and especially in counting votes, then there can be NO agreements to protect proprietary information. Any such system must be 100% transparent as to its operation.
Implementing a secure and accurate election system is not difficult. The more unnecessarily complex and obscure the governing officials make the system, the more you can be sure that they are doing so to hide fraud.
He’s saying that preserving the ILLUSION of election integrity is more important.
Hannah is a weirdo from LA who couldn’t get into a California law school so he got into the U of A law school instead and unfortunately stuck around Arizona, where he comes up with decisions like this using inverted logic, which is normal for the weird, weird world of the LA basin.
Yeah, exposing invalid/ missing signatures could do that.
Translated:
Transparency is what we let you see, and election integrity is what we tell you.
Draw your own conclusions.
If a random sample of ballots was reviewed and found to be proper, THAT would increase confidence in elections.
This is obviously an admission a thorough review would undermine confidence in the election process.
We have to keep the ugly truth buried so people will remain fooled the winners of the election were correctly elected.
This is wild. Ballot envelope signatures are not private. Only the ballot inside is private. The signature is a public proof of your identity--it's meant to be examined and verified. That's what the signatures are for.
Translating briefly, the judge (who needs a jail sentence) is saying that determining the integrity of the electoral process in Arizona would be bad for the reputation of Arizona elections because it would tend to show that the process is fraudulent.
I read the headline, and knew that the answer would be no. Sure enough, the first paragraph proved my suspicions true.
Too many Republicans just lie down and let these Dems walk all over us. People like Kari Lake have courage, but she can’t do this by herself.
And also erodes public confidence in the judiciary...
"would have a corrosive effect on public confidence in the electoral process."
What public confidence in the electoral process?!
Actually, the vote itself is inside, and doesn't need to be visible to the auditor. Whether the signature actually belongs to a registered voter by that name is what's being tested--and that's visible on the outside. If that's wrong, the vote is just thrown out and its vote subtracted.
But there's no violation of a voter's privacy involved. If the signature is bad, it didn't belong to a real voter. A real, registered voter's vote is not being revealed, and there's no one to harass.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah choses to give aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States rather that to adhere to his oath of office.
How about a “corrosive effect” on people who are the true winners of elections being able to be sworn into the position? This “judge” sounds like a typical dimmocrap ‘tard.
“would have a corrosive effect on public confidence in the electoral process.”
I believe the judge is saying the fraud cannot be examined since to do so will reveal the true scope of election corruption.
Correct, now it’s like a secret society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.