BREAKING: Maricopa County Elections Officials DELETED ENTIRE DATABASE from Voting Machines – Including “All Election Information” from Main Database — With Copy of Senate Letter
By Patty McMurray
Published May 12, 2021 at 10:27pm
Last week, the Gateway Pundit reported about the emergency meeting that was called by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, after the County was reportedly unable to provide passwords to the auditors performing an audit of the county’s 2020 Election results. They also did not provide access to the routers which were requested in the audit as well.
This afternoon, it was discovered that “the entire database” for the 2020 General election, showing the “Results Tally and Reporting,” has been deleted!
Here is the letter to Maricopa County Supervisor Chairman Jack Sellers from Arizona Senate President Karen Fann:
Dear Chairman Sellers:
I am writing to seek your assistance and cooperation in the resolution of three (3) serious issues that have arisen in the course of the Senate’s ongoing audit of the returns of the November 3, 2020, general election in Maricopa County.
I. Ongoing Non-Compliance with the Legislative Subpoenas
The first issue concerns Maricopa County’s apparent intent to renege on its previous commitment to comply fully with the legislative subpoenas issued on January 13, 2021, which, as you know, Judge Thomason found were valid and enforceable.
To date, attorneys for Maricopa County have refused to produce virtual images of routers used in connection with the general election, relying on a conclusory and unsupported assertion that providing the routers would somehow “endanger the lives of law enforcement officers, their operations, or the protected health information and personal data of Maricopa County’s citizens.”If true, the fact that Maricopa County stores on its routers substantial quantities of citizens’ and employees’ highly sensitive personal information is an alarming indictment of the County’s lax data security practices, rather than of the legislative subpoenas.
Similarly, the County’s assertion that producing the internet routers for inspection would cost up to $6,000,000 seems at odds with Deputy County Attorney Joseph La Rue’s prior representation to Audit Liaison Ken Bennett that the routers already had been disconnected from the County’s network and were prepared for imminent delivery to the Senate.
Nevertheless, in an effort to resolve the dispute regarding production of the routers, we propose that agents of CyFIR, an experienced digital forensics firm and subcontractor of Cyber Ninjas, review virtual images of the relevant routers in Maricopa County facilities and in the presence of representatives of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Such an arrangement would permit Maricopa County to retain custody and monitor the review of router data while ensuring that the Senate may access the information it requires—and to which it is constitutionally entitled—to successfully complete its audit. The Senate has no interest in viewing or taking possession of any information that is unrelated to the administration of the 2020 general election.
Separately, Maricopa County has refused to provide the passwords necessary to access vote tabulation devices. Its attorneys’ insistence that the County does not have custody or control of this information is belied by the County’s conduct of its own audits, which, if they were as comprehensive as they purported to be, almost certainly would have entailed use of the passwords to examine the tabulation devices, and it strains credulity to posit that the County has no contractual right to obtain (i.e., control of) password information from Dominion.
II. Chain of Custody and Ballot Organization Anomalies
As the audit has progressed, the Senate’s contractors have become aware of apparent omissions, inconsistencies, and anomalies relating to Maricopa County’s handling, organization, and storage of ballots.We hope you can assist us in understanding these issues, including specifically the following:
The County has not provided any chain-of-custody documentation for the ballots.Does such documentation exist, and if so, will it be produced?
The bags in which the ballots were stored are not sealed, although the audit team has found at the bottom of many boxes cut seals of the type that would have sealed a ballot bag. Why were these seals placed at the bottom of the boxes?
Batches within a box are frequently separated by only a divider without any indication of the corresponding batch numbers.In some cases, the batch dividers are missing altogether.This lack of organization has significantly complicated and delayed the audit team’s ballot processing efforts.What are the County’s procedures for sorting, organizing, and packaging ballot batches?
Most of the ballot boxes were sealed merely with regular tape and not secured by any kind of tamper-evident seal. Is that the County’s customary practice for storing ballots?
The audit team has encountered a significant number of instances in which there is a disparity between the actual number of ballots contained in a batch and the total denoted on the pink report slip accompanying the batch.In most of these instances, the total on the pink report slip is greater than the number of ballots in the batch, although there are a few instances in which the total is lower.What are the reasons for these discrepancies?For your reference, please see several illustrative (i.e., not comprehensive) examples in the table below:
~~~~~ continue at ~~~~~