Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 thoughts on “What the Maricopa Co. 2020 Election Audit Really Found”

  1. Sharyl and Full Measure Team,

    Rigged Elections Since 2000 ?

    “Sidney Powell: Yes, the patents were actually issued, I think in 2006, and maybe one in 2009, but they were applied for, and provisional patents were granted much earlier than that. And the research probably began much earlier than that, too. And then we’ve also identified, thanks to some patriots who brought it to our attention, a video that was done back in 2004, of a man who actually testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee field meeting in Ohio about having written an algorithm himself in the year 2000. At the request of a person in Congress who wanted an election rigged. So this has been going on a long time. What I found especially troubling is that it’s been brought to the attention of officials. I’m documenting now a number of times that people in positions of authority have been notified of this and done nothing about it, turned a blind eye to it. The only conclusion we can draw from that is that politicians, business leaders, global titans, corrupt government officials, whoever you want to call it, whatever it is, a large group of ‘they’ out there have known this for a long time and have been using it to manipulate our elections as far back as the year 2000.”:

    Above paragraph is found in here :



    I see my posted “Nazarene Fund“ essay,
    in one of your pages, is a draft copy.

  2. “Information credibility crisis”– an excellent encapsulation describing the situation we find ourselves in now, and have been in for quite some time. Permission to borrow. (?)

  3. While, not knowing whom to trust may be valid, I do know whom NOT to trust. The mainstream media, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

    If they tell me something, I’ll know the very basics may be true (like covid exists, or we had an election in 2020) and beyond that it’s pure politics and BS.

    There are a few reporters I put more faith in, you being one Ms. Attkisson, and Glenn Greenwald being another. I’ve not used google for a search engine but have used DuckDuckGo for a few years and get much more objective results.

  4. I totally agree with you, Tammy. About all you said. Sharyl is truly one of the few I trust. I wish she had her own school of journalism. Also what you said about search engines. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. Or actually, laziness. Verify everything. The media pushes something hard, search for the actual truth. Not on Google.

  5. I enjoyed the podcast. It is the first of Sharyl’s that I have listened to.

    My only complaint about the podcast is that it did not appear that Sharyl had looked at the responses to the various points made by Maricopa County so that a more balanced commentary on the audit could be given. To her credit she did say that many of the point had been refuted

    When I first read about the audit results, I went to both right and left wing sources. The right wing talked the types of issues Sharyl mentioned so I looked into a couple of them. The explanations I found made sense. For example, if there is a mail-in ballot received where there is an issue with the exterior of the envelop (not signed for example), the voter is contacted and allowed to correct the issue. This results in the envelope being scanned into the system a second time. Hence these showed up in the audit as “duplicate” ballots. Another issue I looked into was the files deleted from the voting machines. Yes they were deleted, but only after they were stored on a server as is normal practice.

    What really bugs me, as it did Sharyl, is that the County did not work with the auditors. Had this happened I suspect the report would have been much better than it was. As it stands it is hard to know what things brought up by CN were real issues.

    Sharyl suggested that people read the audit. What I would add is that responses to the audit should also be read to get a more complete picture.

    1. Good points. I’m really frustrated reading the “debunking” stuff because how do you get to the truth without a back and forth from both sides. And the media’s condescending, snarky tone does not build confidence in their “facts.”

      Anyhow – I wanted to comment on you saying this:
      “Another issue I looked into was the files deleted from the voting machines. Yes they were deleted, but only after they were stored on a server as is normal practice.”

      This is an example of media and county “framing” the issue. Here’s my understanding of what ACTUALLY happened, without the “framing”:

      1. Election equipment PLUS “all election materials” were subpoenaed.
      2. Long AFTER receiving the subpoena, the DAY BEFORE turning the equipment over to the audit, the county removed thousands of election files (that were part of the subpoena) from the physical equipment.
      3. The county claims they archived a copy of the deleted data elsewhere.
      4. The county turned over the equipment sans deleted data.
      5. Auditors discovered and reported that election data had been deleted from the machine.
      6. Media and county said the auditors were incompetent because they didn’t know to specifically subpoena whatever hard drive the county “archived” the deleted data to the day before turning it over. (Nevermind they did subpoena “all election data.”

Scroll to Top