Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 21, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

07:53:03

Kari Lake Election Contest TRIAL! Viva & Barnes Live Commentary

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, I'm Dr. Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General of the United States, reminding you that the most important thing you can do to keep yourself, your loved ones, and your community safe from COVID-19 is to get an updated COVID vaccine.
	These vaccines are easy to get and proven to protect you from serious illness.
	Visit vaccines.gov to find one today.
	Thanks so much, and travel safely.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Hi, I'm Dr. Vivek Murthy.
	I did that, people.
	That was my creative contribution to the world this morning.
	It is the morning.
	My camera seems a little low.
	Hold on.
	Okay, that's a little better.
	Why does it seem like it's zoomed in more than most days?
	Go get your...
	It's an updated...
	It's just updated.
	Like the flu shot.
	Updated.
	It's like version 2.0.
	It's just going to go on forever.
	Who would have thunk that Bill Gates...
	Would have implemented the same computer tech updating.
	Just update.
	I'm just going to do something.
	Got to sell you a new product, sell you a new car.
	I wouldn't buy a used car from that Surgeon General.
	What's amazing is that I don't trust that guy.
	And yet they will demonize the Surgeon General of the state of Florida as some sort of medical quack because they disagree with his opinion.
	Safe and effective.
	It's proven.
	Go get it.
	Updated.
	2.0.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	Hold on.
	I want to see one thing here.
	I'm going to go to settings.
	High definition.
	Okay, we're in HD.
	Good.
	Audio is good.
	And we're going to see if the live feed for the hearing that I've got...
	Tabernush.
	Is it loud?
	Okay, hold on.
	I've got a good feed.
	Okay, I've got a feed.
	The audio...
	The audio is not acceptable.
	Hold on.
	Let me just bring this up, and I'm going to see if we can find something else.
	Present.
	I found a feed from Right Side News.
	Holy cows, it just blew my ears out.
	Carrie Lake Trial.
	That's me.
	Forget that.
	Okay, here we go.
	Here we go.
	How do I close this down?
	I got two windows.
	I hear...
	Okay.
	This is right side.
	Let's see if there are audios.
	Unacceptable.
	Yeah, it's Thomas Liddy on behalf Okay.
	Sorry, everyone.
	That's unacceptable, right?
	We're all hearing that horrible static.
	Okay.
	Let me just make sure that everyone in the chat is hearing that same...
	Audio.
	Is the audio trash everywhere?
	Audio is great, never.
	The audio here is good, but is the Carrie Lake Hearing Live?
	Let me just see who.
	That audio, I don't know if that's right side news.
	Live.
	Here we go.
	We got this one here.
	Must fail.
	No, this is live from yesterday.
	All right, everyone in the chat, let's get some aggregate knowledge of the interwebs going.
	Maricopa County.
	That was not acceptable audio.
	I mean, that was gonna...
	Hold on just one second.
	Hello?
	The first is...
	There's a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses.
	I've considered those.
	What I intend to do at this time is to expel things.
	I believe that under the local rule, it's been briefed.
	I have everything I need to decide it, so I don't need oral argument on that because we need to get started on the actual trial.
	I'm going to see if I can find a better audio.
	Experts.
	Will Sumner 2A allows me to consider expert testimony if they have qualifications or expertise beyond that of in this instance it's going to be the court with regard to particular matters relating directly to the court.
	I'm gonna go see if the audio is just as bad on other feeds.
	I'll be back.
	To certain things.
	However, that subject is foundation.
	And it is also going to be to relevance.
	Because the motion...
	Learn as far as to seek to strike the reports of both experts.
	I haven't had those offered in evidence, but I will tell you that my inclination is if the witness is testifying, it's cumulative to have a report.
	And furthermore, the reports also contain opinions that go beyond the remaining counts that we have for trial.
	So my position on that, I will...
	If you seek to admit them, I will rule at that time, but I'm giving you an indication of what you might expect.
	The other motion under Rule 807, there are many, many affidavits in this case.
	I've read them.
	This is a trial to the court.
	I am persuaded that under Rule 807, given the intersection of Rule 807 with the time constraints set by the legislature for holding an election contest, that there is no alternative reasonable method that the plaintiffs have to get 219 witnesses in front of me and allow cross-examination.
	Second of all...
	Those affidavits that are attached to Mr. Sinclair's affidavit that deal with observations by voters, poll workers, or persons...
	To enter those into evidence...
	Okay, that's my...
	The plaintiff's exhibit membering system left something to be desired.
	And the clerk has now numbered your exhibits.
	You identified them by description in that number.
	Was this better or worse?
	It's a clarification of which exhibits you were actually offering for the record.
	Not right now, because I'm not going to take up your time to do that.
	At the first opportunity, I want you to go through and for the record, what I'm asking you to do is to provide me the exhibit numbers.
	four Bear in mind, they have six hours today, and this is how they're going to use however much time all of this procedural administrative stuff takes, and I don't know if they're going to extend, if they have the option of extending to Friday if they need more time.
	Court is a bunch of hurry up and wait.
	Higher volume, please.
	Okay.
	So it's in Arizona, it's nine of...
	...are attached in your pleadings, plaintiff, as exhibits A1 through...
	Yeah, it's...
	A220 of your complaint.
	Also...
	The judge looks pissed.
	220 exhibits.
	It appears that you're seeking to admit affidavits, or you will be seeking to admit affidavits that were attached to the declaration of Mr. Olson.
	You're acting as counsel, Mr. Olson, so I will 3.7 of the rules of professional economics say you can't be a lawyer and a witness.
	I think we might have found better audio.
	Hold on.
	Unless it's a matter that's something I'm willing to take judicial notice of.
	I don't think anything.
	I don't need to go through and the record, for the record, what I'm asking you to do.
	I'm not admitting your affidavit, but it's the attachments to the affidavit that I believe that are being sought to be entered.
	Better audio might be coming.
	them.
	Go through.
	Exhibit one attached.
	To your affidavit, Mr. Olson is not relevant, nor is exhibit number two.
	Those are the rulings of the 19th.
	Exhibit three, same thing.
	Exhibit four, same thing.
	And exhibit five, same thing.
	Next, exhibit six, seven.
	8, 9, 10, 11, well, 10 are all within what I would believe construe as.
	Hold on, it's coming.
	This audio feed seems to be coming from a Zoom call.
	3.7 of the rules of professional conduct say you can't be a lawyer and a witness.
	So, unless it's a matter that's something I'm willing to take judicial notice of, I don't think anything in this case is something I'm going to take judicial notice of.
	So, I'm admitting your affidavit, but it's the attachments to the affidavit that I believe that are being sought to be entered.
	And to that end, specifically...
	Yeah, this looks like it's the direct Zoom link and not some rebroadcast from whatever court cameras allowed in.
	Hence, maybe CRISPR audio.
	Exhibit one attached to your affidavit, Mr. Olson, is not relevant, nor is exhibit number two because of the rulings of the 19th.
	Exhibit three, same thing.
	Exhibit four, same thing.
	And exhibit five, same thing.
	Next, exhibits six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, well, ten, are all within what I would believe or construe as That 807 exception to allow for observations that took place at the time in
	place of the election and the persons who are the declarants.
	The others, the declaration of Mr. Barris, he's an expert.
	Richard Barris, people.
	He's obtained for the purpose of litigation.
	He's got a report, etc., and I've talked about that.
	The declaration of Shelby Bush is also...
	Not pertinent to what I have for me, the affidavit of Clay Parick.
	Is that how I pronounce it?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	And Kelly K.J. Kuchta, they are all prepared in anticipation of litigation, and I'm not admitting those under 807.
	Okay?
	So, what I need for you to do is to get with the attendants, show them their exhibit numbers, get me those numbers, and then...
	I can address admitting those at a letter point.
	I don't want to steal this guy's content.
	It's not just a feed.
	Either at the time we move to admit them, actually, or right now I can allow the defendants to take some of their time to make an additional record.
	I've read what you wrote already in your responses.
	That is a matter of record, and I'm saying right here in open court that that is preserved as an objection to what I'm doing.
	If you have something additional you want to add as a record, I'll let you do it now, or I can let you do it at the time that Mr. Olson complies with my request by that.
	I'd like to suspect exhibit members.
	Nothing further, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	We'll rest on our papers, Your Honor.
	We reserve the right to object if something has no probative value to the remaining counts.
	Thank you, Mr. Liddy.
	Obviously, I I'm the trier of fact.
	This trial is going to be conducted with the eye that I am able to give things the weight that I deem appropriate, anywhere from zero to great weight.
	And so I will rely upon you, counsel on both sides, to present argument or to present...
	If he's just streaming a feed, I have no problem with it, but if he's going to do commentary, I don't want to...
	To that end, I'm a real concern that you've allocated yourself 15 minutes and 5 minutes for closing argument.
	So...
	Go straight to the court's website.
	You may want to rethink that.
	So court websites.
	So...
	I believe that those are all matters that I have before we can get stood.
	Last keeping item, Your Honor.
	Defendants would like to invoke the rule to exclude any non-expert testifying witnesses from the courtroom.
	I order the rule, sir.
	Today's hearings.
	The rule has been invoked.
	I'm going to have to rely upon counsel because I don't know these people by sight.
	There are persons who are non-parties who are witnesses to this case, who are present.
	They must...
	Leave the courtroom, not discuss their testimony either before or after they testify with anyone other than the attorneys.
	Mr. Scott Jarrett, the Elections Department Director, is here as a party representative, but he's also listed as a witness.
	Very well.
	I'll accept the designation.
	Very well.
	We're ready to proceed.
	Ready to proceed.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Your Honor?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Very well.
	Mr. Olson.
	Hello.
	Mr. Blattman.
	Your Honor, we would like to start with recorder Stephen Richer.
	Richer, as we say in Quebec.
	Okay, we have Mr. Richer then.
	What is this?
	Is Richard the one that we saw in that video the day of the hearing, the day of elections with the stubbly reddish beard?
	Sort of looks like Prince Andrew.
	I've got a kid who's home from school today who might be interrupting.
	What's up?
	You're not going to find this interesting.
	Okay, he's not coming.
	I'm going to see if I can't find a director.
	This is good.
	You'd swear, Mr. Richard, please.
	Please, your right hand.
	You do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
	I do.
	Very well.
	The way I can see the witness via video or audio feed.
	This is going to be video?
	I'm not sure.
	All right.
	I think the answer that I've received from somebody with technical knowledge is the witness needs to turn his camera on.
	Recorder Richard, can you please turn your camera on?
	Well, thank you very much.
	All right, could you please state your full name for the record?
	Stephen Richard, R-I-C-H-E-R.
	Yeah, that's the guy that we saw on the video on the day of.
	Maricopa County Recorder.
	Maricopa County Recorder, how long have you held that position?
	I was elected in the November 2020 election.
	I took office on January 4th, 2021.
	This is the guy that was in the video with Bill Gates on election day.
	And as Maricopa County Recorder, you play a pivotal role in Arizona elections, do you not?
	I am statutorily responsible for recording operations, vote registration, and early voting.
	With respect to your recording of operations, does that include maintaining written chain of custody for all ballots?
	The recording operations I refer to are the recording of public documents mostly related to the real estate industry, such as titles and deeds.
	All right.
	Do you maintain in your office, with respect to your duties, election-related duties, chain of custody documents?
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	Are those required by law?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Chain of custody requirement.
	Arizona is a significantly larger county than any other state of Arizona.
	Is that correct?
	You mean Maricopa County?
	All right, and so is it fair to say that as Maricopa County goes, so too goes Arizona?
	I don't follow.
	Well, the population center in Maricopa County is significantly larger than all the other counties, isn't that correct?
	That's correct, but it's not dispositive, as was shown in the Superintendent of Public Instructions race and another statewide race.
	And a Republican won that race, is that correct?
	I believe that race is in recount.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Okay, so explain to the court then what your role is in running elections in Maricopa County.
	As mentioned before, I am responsible for registering voters, so intaking those, doing all the background checks, confirming identity, confirming location, maintaining the voter registration database.
	Having that available at the cutoff date, which this election was 28 days before the Election Day.
	Ordinarily, that's 29 days before Election Day, but this year we had Columbus Day on the 29th day, and so it moved to the 28th day.
	On the 27th day, we mail out early ballots to all people who are either on the active early voting list or who have requested a one-time early ballot.
	That this general election was approximately 1.9 million registered voters out of the approximately 2.4 million registered voters overall in Maricopa County.
	We send those out.
	We are also responsible for all forms of early voting.
	That could include dropping off a ballot at a drop box.
	Voting location that could include going to an early voting location, getting a new ballot printed that's still governed by early voting laws, meaning it still has to go in an envelope.
	That envelope has to be sealed and signed, and it comes back to us.
	My office is also responsible for things like UOCABA, which is Uniform and Overseas Voting.
	Now, that begins actually 45 days under federal law before the election.
	We are not responsible for election day operations, emergency voting, which is the weekend before election day, or for ballot tabulation.
	All right, and so those responsibilities lie with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, correct?
	That's correct, and that's true of all 15 counties.
	All right.
	And so I believe you mentioned drop boxes.
	You are responsible for those and for ensuring that the ballots get from drop boxes to Maricopa County, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you testified earlier you're required by law to maintain chain of custody.
	That includes chain of custody from pickup at drop box to delivery to Maricopa County.
	Isn't that correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay, does that also include when they leave Maricopa County and they're delivered to Runbeck?
	They never leave our chain of custody because they are with our personnel at all times, but yes, they go to Runbeck.
	Okay, so are Runbeck your personnel?
	No.
	No, they are a third-party vendor, correct?
	Correct.
	Are you the only county in the state of Arizona that uses a third-party vendor for intake of its ballots?
	Maricopa County has been doing this since the 1990s.
	No answer.
	Are you the only county in the state of Arizona that uses a third-party vendor for intake of your ballots?
	I bet it's a yes.
	And so was your testimony just a moment ago with respect to my question on chain of custody...
	With delivery of Maricopa County ballots from your custody and control at MC Tech to run back a third-party vendor, that they are not governed by chain of custody laws?
	They are.
	They are.
	And that would also apply to the return of those ballots from the third-party vendor run back to MC Tech.
	Is that correct?
	I'm not sure I follow, but...
	Are you required to maintain chain of custody from third-party vendor Runbeck back to Maricopa?
	By law.
	Chain of custody is preserved throughout all times.
	That's not what he asked.
	It's documented when it goes to Runbeck.
	It never leaves the site of our personnel.
	It's documented when it comes back to McTech.
	Correct.
	So you document every transport of ballots from McTech to Runbeck?
	Correct.
	What kind of forms do you use?
	It's a ballot transportation slip.
	It's a white form.
	Does that include the total number of ballots you're taking to run back?
	It does include the total number of ballots for early voting.
	But does not for...
	Okay, thank you.
	That would include election day ballots?
	Election Day ballots are traded a little differently.
	It was obvious from his answer.
	Election Day ballots that are voted on site, those are under the domain of the Board of Supervisors.
	If you're talking about early ballots that are dropped off on Election Day, those come and those all come to McTech first, where they are gathered, and then they are transferred over to Runbeck, where they are counted by our people at Runbeck because they have a high-speed counter.
	Because that's the only day in which approximately 300,000 early ballots come in on one day.
	Okay, is it your testimony here today that you, once Election Day happens, are no longer legally responsible for the ballots that are dropped into Dropbox?
	Your Honor, wait just a minute, Recorder Richard.
	Your Honor, this line of questioning is calling for a legal conclusion.
	No, it's not.
	From the witness.
	Asking for a question of facts.
	Your Honor, he understands the laws that apply to his job?
	You're asking for the witness's understanding?
	Is that correct?
	I'm asking if that's his understanding.
	He just testified that the drop boxes in the voting centers, Your Honor, are under the control of the Maricopa County Board of Superpowers.
	Your Honor, with that being the question, we withdraw the objection.
	That's fine.
	I was...
	Mr. Richer.
	These questions are directed to you and your understanding, and if you understand the question, we'll presume that that's the case.
	If you don't understand the question, you can ask to have it rephrased.
	Do you need this last question rephrased, or do you remember it, sir?
	What is the judge doing?
	Well, perhaps because that was an inaccurate representation of my position.
	Richard.
	Okay, Mr. Richard.
	I'll let him ask a question.
	The Zoom delay is really annoying.
	With respect to drop boxes in vote centers on Election Day, who is it that is responsible for those ballots?
	Voting locations on Election Day are overseen by Board of Supervisors in all 15 counties.
	I understand that recorder, but you're not answering my question.
	The drop boxes are under your purview as a recorder.
	When the ballots get back to MCTEC, the early ballots, we then process those, we oversee them, we organize them, we get them all aligned in the same manner, we count them, we then send them with our personnel to MCTEC.
	such that they can be scanned and imaged overnight, such that at 7:00 a.m.
	on Wednesday morning, we could begin the signature verification process for those 290,000 ballots, the early ballots that were dropped off That's a lot of words.
	That's a lot of words.
	Okay, so the statute, are you familiar with the statute, first of all, that governs the chain of custody of ballots?
	I am generally familiar with Title 16 and Title 19. Does the statute draw a distinction between Election Day dropbox ballots and early ballots that take place before Election Day?
	It does.
	Okay.
	I could get this guy in person for this.
	Does it draw a distinction with respect to your responsibility?
	To provide chain of custody for all Dropbox ballots?
	I don't follow the line of questioning.
	All right.
	Does the statute requiring you to maintain chain of custody for all Dropbox-related ballots say shall or may?
	We must maintain chain of custody for all early ballots.
	Okay, so now, again, you're parsing with early versus those dropped at a polling center in a drop box, correct?
	I'm not attempting to.
	I'm just distinguishing those from ballots that are cast in person on Election Day.
	There are early ballots that are dropped off on Election Day.
	We maintain chain of custody.
	For those ballots.
	Right.
	Well, let me ask you this.
	Do you know if any chain of custody exists for the transport of ballots from drop boxes at vote centers to MCTAC?
	It does.
	It does.
	Okay.
	So you can tell me exactly how many ballots left each vote center on Election Day that came from a drop box.
	I can tell you.
	How many early ballots we received on election day?
	Not the question.
	Okay.
	Per voting center.
	Can you tell me, based on chain of custody documents, how many ballots left the drop boxes from the vote centers and were transported to MCTAC?
	Yes.
	Based on documents that you have in your possession?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	You're familiar with EPM, correct?
	Are you referring to the Elections Procedures Manual?
	Yes, I am.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay.
	And that also contains specific language with respect to early ballots, Dropbox ballots.
	Isn't that correct?
	That's correct.
	And it contains the same statutory language as Shell as opposed to May?
	Is that correct?
	I can't recollect.
	Okay.
	When you first took office in Maricopa County, were there some concerns about Dropbox chain of custody in Arizona?
	Yes, there was.
	If you're asking if there were in the general public, yes, and I'm certainly aware of many things that have been alleged over the last two years.
	Perhaps most noteworthy of which was the documentary 2000 Mules.
	All right, and are you aware of a report issued by Arizona Attorney General with respect to Dropbox ballot chain of customs?
	I am, and that pertained to the 2020 general election.
	The 2020 general election?
	Okay, well, and that was the basis of my question.
	When you took office, did you make any changes to chain of custody forms based upon that report?
	Based upon that report, which came out in April 2022?
	No.
	No.
	Okay, so you changed forms prior to that period of time?
	We did change forms prior to that period of time, correct.
	All right, why did you do that?
	For the same reason that we changed personnel, for the same reason that we added personnel, for the same reason that we revisited all of our processes, for the same reason that we're rebuilding our voter registration database, for the same reason that we rebuilt our website, because I'm in this office to try and move it forward.
	I hope to leave it better than I inherited, and I'm sure the next person will want to do the same.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	And so you testified to me that you know, you can tell exactly how many ballots were transported from Vote Center Dropboxes to MC Tech on Election Day.
	I believe you recall tweeting at about 11 a.m., I believe it was.
	And can we go ahead and pull up?
	Exhibit 61?
	This guy, this reporter does not get paid enough money for what he's being subjected to.
	Not to say that he...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	He won.
	They haven't brought this on themselves.
	It's number 007815.
	For the record, I need to have the official number.
	Yes, Your Honor, and that's why I said 61. 63. 63. My mistake, Your Honor.
	63. Thank you.
	So I read in the chat on vivabarneslaw.com.
	Are you able to see what's on?
	Well, that's not it.
	Apparently there might be a better feed with less delay, but I've actually linked into the actual video from the website, the Maricopa County website.
	It's a delay there as well.
	Oh, that's not yours.
	Okay.
	63. The one that's on the table.
	Yep.
	That is the one on the corner.
	Yep.
	Mm-hmm.
	It's appearing on the laptop.
	I know somebody who looks exactly like Richer, the Maricopa County guy.
	It's so distracting.
	I feel like I know this guy already.
	And while we're pulling this up, you help supervise the transport of EVBTS containers.
	Is that correct?
	On election day?
	Yes, I was part of the team that spent the whole evening organizing the early ballots as they came back to MCTEC.
	Okay, and you did not at any time see any chain of custody forms attached to those EVBTS stock bids, did you?
	No.
	I don't.
	I don't quite know what you mean.
	We scan in every single box.
	And what does that scan tell you?
	Where it came from?
	So when the early ballots are removed from their blue container at the voting location...
	Okay, you've gone beyond the question I've asked.
	Good.
	They unload these blue containers from the vehicle or the truck, whatever.
	It's a rider rental truck or a personal POV.
	They unload them and they put them on what's called the blue line.
	Isn't that correct?
	No.
	Now, where do they put them?
	Well, your previous statement was inaccurate.
	He just asked you to clarify it.
	Do they contain any documentation contained on the bins for chain of custody?
	From Transport to the Pollings from the Vote Center to MCTEC.
	Yes.
	They contain those forms on Election Day.
	Yes.
	On Election Day.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	If we were to show video of you opening some of those bins, would you be able to see those forms?
	He'll say no.
	There's a piece of paper on the side of the bin.
	The bin is also affixed with two scannable serialized tamper evidence seals that we scan in upon receipt.
	We then take that piece of paper that is on the side of it after we have broken those seals and then we begin processing those early ballots on election night.
	Okay, so that piece of paper tells you exactly how many ballots are in each bin?
	No.
	Not on election night.
	Okay, that's the nature of my question.
	You don't have any idea how many ballots are in those bins, do you?
	We count them at MGTEC.
	Okay, you count them at MGTEC.
	After they arrive.
	And then do you create a chain of custody form on election day at MGTEC?
	Yes, before it goes to run back.
	Have you produced all of those in response to a FOIA request that was submitted to your office?
	I don't think we're bound by federal law.
	Okay.
	Have you submitted them in respect to a public records request under Arizona law?
	Sorry, I see Joe standing up, but I don't know if that's lag.
	Yeah, he's sitting.
	I can see him too.
	He's sitting.
	I believe we have.
	And so, on Election Day, it would have been easy for you to figure out how many ballots you received.
	Yeah, well, we had to get them all in, and it was quite a process throughout the night.
	You could look at the forms and add the numbers, correct?
	You could have a staff member do that?
	No, we added them up.
	They're not counted at the individual voting locations.
	They are counted when they get back to Mic Tech and then they are recounted at runback.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to switch up, guys.
	I'm going to switch up.
	And so you reported then on, I believe it was the 9th, that's the day after the election, that there were 270,000 early ballots received.
	Is that correct?
	That was my estimate at the time.
	So you tweeted it, correct?
	If you say so.
	And then you said that again in the afternoon on a press conference.
	Is that correct?
	I said I believe there were at least 275,000 early ballots dropped off on Election Day.
	All right.
	And was that the same number you reported to the Secretary of State's office on that day?
	I do not report to the Secretary of State's office.
	That's handled by the tabulation side.
	Okay.
	And that would be the Maricopa County recorder?
	I am the Maricopa County Recorder.
	No, that would be the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
	All right, so they count the ballots when they come in.
	No.
	All I want to know is, does anybody know when those ballots leave the polling pledge centers, the voting centers, how many are in the bins?
	He's going to say yes.
	When the ballots leave, the early ballots leave the voting centers, no.
	They are not counted at the voting centers.
	So nobody knows how many are in the bins when they arrive at MCTEC?
	Correct.
	Well, that took a long time.
	But according to your testimony, they contain documents that tell you how many are in the bins?
	No, they contain chain of custody documents.
	And it's your testimony that you count them at MCTEC?
	Correct.
	All right.
	Can we go ahead and I guess just pull up a different exhibit if that one's not working?
	It's not the issue.
	It's the computer.
	It's the house.
	I'm going to try it myself to do something here while we have a pause.
	Okay, I'm going to put this on pause so I don't lose that feed.
	I'm going to remove that.
	I'm going to go to the next feed, which I think the audio was fixed on this one here.
	The audio was better, and now I'm going to take it off mute.
	I'm going to take it off mute.
	I don't think we like this.
	Unable to currently reconcile SOS listing with our estimates from yesterday.
	All right.
	Do we prefer this to the other one?
	I'm not sending that email.
	Did you say I said that?
	No, no, I said that.
	Your Honor, I'd like to ask an objection.
	We need to see the acceptance if he's going to use it.
	I like the video on this one better, but nobody likes it.
	Okay, so we're going to go back to the other one.
	Sorry, guys.
	We'll stop doing this in a second.
	Here.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Very quickly.
	Do you recall on the 10th of November at 2022 at 2:13 p.m. sending an email to Ray Valenzuela, Scott Jarrett, Megan Gilbertson, Matthew Roberts, Phil Morseley, as well as he seeing Bill Gates and a few others?
	That states, and I'll read this verbatim if anybody wants to challenge it, unable to currently reconcile SOS listing with our estimates from yesterday.
	Oh boy.
	I don't remember that email.
	Do you recall sending that email?
	Add the little flame emojis around his head.
	If you say I said that, then I said that.
	Dude, you don't...
	I'd like to lodge an ejection.
	Let's hear this.
	We need to see the exhibit.
	We're slightly delayed.
	Thank you.
	We'll correct the record if I quoted that wrong.
	That's what we saw on the live feed from Arizona TV.
	If you're going to use an exhibit that you show the other side before...
	And is that one of the...
	This is, Your Honor, this is Exhibit 69. But for some reason, we did come in and test this system with that computer, with this AV technician prior to trial, Your Honor.
	Everything functioned perfectly fine.
	We're not sure what the disconnect is.
	If you say I sent that email, I don't remember sending an email saying we can't reconcile the numbers.
	I don't think...
	Any objections?
	No objection, Your Honor.
	I would move to admit then Exhibit 69, Your Honor.
	Please, let's do that.
	Anybody from your office is asking if they had an objection.
	Yes, it's damning for our case.
	The email that I just looked at, there's no objection.
	I don't know if that's number 69 or not, but assuming it is, there's no objection to the admission.
	Now let's hear that email again.
	Let's hear that.
	I want to make sure that I understood it.
	It is 69. I'm pretty sure.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Pretty sure isn't going to get us there.
	Yeah, Exhibit 69, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	And Exhibit 69 is admitted.
	All right.
	Your Honor, Your Honor, I'm sorry.
	Before we move on, they provided letter numbers.
	Can we get the letter numbers so that we can just keep track of?
	Do you have more?
	RSBN?
	I have a list provided to Council that jives our numbers with the course numbers, Sean.
	Thank you.
	For the interim, I'd like to use the court's numbering system.
	Understood, Your Honor.
	And that's what I'm doing when I said Exhibit 69, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	And my AV tech knows which exhibit that is.
	Thank you.
	Your Honor.
	I'm going to have to pause to make sure that they understand what you're referring to before we go forward.
	Your Honor, I would like to request that, despite me saying that I have no objection to the admission, assuming it's 69, that we confirm.
	That exhibit number before the court actually admits it.
	That's what you're supposed to do at the time he's seeking to admit it.
	I'm not going to put an asterisk next to it.
	There is no way, Your Honor, without seeing the numbering system and making sure that we're not objecting to the right.
	I'm going to try RSBN.
	They're arguing over an exhibit that they're going to allow, so I don't know what the big deal is.
	Present RSBN.
	Looks like it has better election.
	Better audio here.
	This is...
	Is this it?
	No, I'm closing that.
	That's not it.
	Don't worry, people.
	We're coming back in two seconds.
	We're not missing anything.
	This looks like it.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	December 10th.
	There we go.
	Asking them how many ballots they process.
	Not at my direction.
	No more playing around.
	Not at your direction.
	On November 10th, did you actually know how many ballots you had processed with respect to drop boxes?
	I mean, yes or no?
	I mean, process is not even a term we use, so I'm a little confused as to that.
	And also, we do it at Runback.
	It is not done by Runback.
	It is our personnel at Runback under the observation of the political parties.
	Okay.
	And so do you recall reporting to the Secretary of State on the 10th of December that there were actually 200, or would that have been the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors?
	My office and I do not report to the Secretary of State's portal.
	All right.
	And so the numbers you were putting out of 275,000 on December 9th were not correct.
	Is that correct?
	I believe I said 275,000 plus.
	Okay.
	And so the correct number, as reported at least by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, are you familiar with that as being 292,000?
	That sounds right.
	Okay.
	And are you familiar with Maricopa County delivery receipts?
	Which particular receipt?
	I might know them under a different name.
	Maricopa County delivery receipts are those that Maricopa County uses to deliver ballots to Runbeck.
	The white slip, that's the one that has two dates, serial number, transport staff.
	All right.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	I'm not going to spend the time if you don't understand your own documents.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Oh, come on.
	That's uncalled for.
	That's not a question.
	That was a comment.
	That was argumentative.
	I'll strike the comment and the question.
	It's your first strike.
	Ooh.
	They're going to pull it.
	Has the Attorney General opened an investigation into the 2022 Maricopa election?
	No.
	You don't know?
	Have you received...
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	I said no.
	Yes, I understand that.
	My next question is, have you received correspondence from the Arizona Attorney General's office asking you to explain certain components of the election?
	They were almost exclusively...
	Directed to the Board of Supervisors.
	I responded.
	I have not received a response back from Ms. Wright.
	Almost exclusively, correct?
	I believe there were some questions about provisional ballots.
	Okay.
	I have no further questions.
	So now, I'm hoping that that lawyer has documents that he knows are going to contradict some of the guy's testimony.
	Your Honor, is there any way that we can...
	Have the camera on me so that the recorder can see me?
	Me.
	I don't know what's going on.
	I could not see Mr. Blem, I believe it was, asking the questions.
	It's you.
	I'm not sure if it's automated or not.
	Okay, we can move on.
	It's all right.
	I don't see Mr. Blem now, and I can see.
	Why wouldn't they bring this guy in in person?
	It makes no sense.
	Does he have COVID now?
	It's all right.
	We can move on.
	Yeah, let's move on.
	Good morning, Mr. Recorder.
	Good to see you.
	Good to see you again.
	You don't have to identify the exact location, but where are you right now?
	Panama City.
	Well, all right.
	And so, are you on vacation?
	First time in four years.
	All right.
	And have you been busy the last couple of years?
	I have been.
	It's been...
	Exciting and worthwhile.
	All right.
	And just for the record, Recorder, would you normally appear in court without a suit?
	I most certainly would not, and I apologize for any breach of sartorial standard.
	It was all I had available to me when I was made aware that this might be a possibility.
	All right.
	Thank you, Recorder.
	I'm sure Your Honor understands.
	I want to ask just a few questions.
	I'm not sure that Your Honor understands.
	I'm on vacation.
	It's only the election.
	First, do you have in your employee a co-director of the elections department for early voting?
	I do.
	His name is Mr. Valenzuela.
	He would be more knowledgeable about these topics than I am.
	Okay.
	And I know you're very hands-on, but you have appointed him to oversee the recorder's early voting operations.
	Is that correct?
	Him and many others, but he leads those, correct?
	Okay.
	Would Ray's oversight extend to the receipt of early ballots at McTec?
	These public records requests?
	We do.
	And you have a small team that handles public records requests, isn't that right?
	We have a team that handles constituent relations, but there is only one individual who is exclusively tasked with public records requests, and she has been quite busy over the last two years.
	Good question, Joe.
	Quite busy.
	I don't expect you to know the exact number, but do you have a reasonable estimate of how many public records requests your office has received this calendar year?
	I believe it's about 1,500, which represents an approximately tenfold increase over...
	Previous years.
	Okay.
	This is his lawyer now.
	Hobbs' lawyer.
	Do you personally respond to public records requests?
	I do not.
	No.
	You as the reporter?
	Yeah, you do not.
	Okay.
	And so while you're very hands-on on elections operations...
	Enhance.
	Would you say you're hands-on on public records requests?
	No.
	I...
	I have a system that is built, but no, I do not see that.
	And that's by design because a lot of the public records requests make requests of my emails specifically.
	And so I think it's a good practice to delegate that to other people, especially people who are not the target of as many requests.
	So a line employee?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	So a celebrated and appreciated line.
	Very much so, recorder.
	So as you sit here today and as you're sitting here testifying, do you actually know whether your public records team has completely responded to a public records request for chain of custody documents?
	I do not.
	Okay, thank you.
	On election night and the first few days following the election, Do you know whether your office and the Board of Supervisors sometimes make estimates regarding how many ballots were returned?
	We try to make estimates as quickly as we can while still doing it responsibly, which is why I gave that 275,000-plus because, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, candidates' campaigns have a strong interest in What happened?
	Is that me?
	To assess whether it's over or whether they still have a chance.
	And so we try to get those out, like I said, as quickly as possible while still being responsible.
	So when you wrote 270,000 plus or 275,000 plus, I don't remember the exact number, but when you included that plus, What exactly were you trying to communicate?
	The plus, I thought, was a clear indication that it was an estimate.
	Obviously, it was 275,000 followed by three zeros, which would be unlikely if that were the final number.
	I apologize if that wasn't clearly conveyed.
	I think it was, clear recorder.
	Do you know whether...
	Whether sometimes estimates are done by counting the trays of ballots, by counting the number of trays which ballots are.
	Have they lost the video?
	Correct.
	And that is what we are doing throughout the evening.
	So we'll get these between 10 p.m. and midnight on election night.
	This is those early ballot drop-offs.
	Now, we received 120,000.
	More early ballot drop-offs on election night than the office had ever received before.
	So as these boxes were coming in and as we were organizing them, we were assessing them by tray before confirming the official count.
	And that's how I most likely got that estimate number.
	That's how I most likely got it.
	He doesn't remember exactly how he did something.
	Again, I'm not asking you to be a legal expert.
	I'm asking, do you know or do you have an understanding?
	Do you have an understanding of whether the law requires that early ballots be counted at the vote center?
	Early ballots actually cannot be counted at the vote center because they are governed still by early voting law, which is my domain, if you will.
	And we have to do a whole bunch of things before we can properly tabulate the ballot that is inside that early ballot.
	Ballot envelope, and that includes scanning it in.
	That includes imaging it.
	That includes signature verifying it.
	That includes sending it to a signature verification audit queue.
	That includes sending it to a bipartisan ballot processing team.
	We keep all tabs all through this process such that if somebody, for instance, puts two ballots in one envelope or if a ballot is damaged inside of an envelope.
	That will be marked by the bipartisan team.
	And that's actually what I spend a lot of my time on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in that big room doing.
	And then at that point, we send them in batches of 200 with that slip, that pink and yellow and white slip, into the board of supervisors such that they can then tabulate them.
	Okay.
	Thank you, recorder.
	And I believe you testified earlier.
	Well, let me just ask you.
	Because I don't have what you testified in front of me.
	Is it true that early ballots are transported in a secure and sealed transport container from the Vote Center back to McTech?
	Secure and sealed.
	I'll add a little more color to that if you don't mind.
	Please.
	So prior to Election Day, they make daily sweeps.
	And when I say they, I mean a bipartisan team of two...
	Temporary employees of the Maricopa County Recorder's Office.
	Bipartisan two temporary employees.
	Say a voting location where there's a ballot drop box.
	They will sign the form.
	The person at the location will sign the form.
	They will write down the tamper evidence seals on the Tupperware bin in which the early ballots are placed after removing them from that big blue container.
	They will write down the seals to make sure that the seals are affixed.
	They'll put it back in the truck.
	They'll have one of these for every single box.
	Then when they go back to MCTEC, they'll make sure that the seals are still affixed.
	They'll make sure that the numbers are the same.
	They'll scan them in, and then they'll break those seals, and then they will count the number of early ballots there, and they will sign off at MCTEC as well.
	Thank you, Recorder.
	Just a few more questions and we are done.
	First, would you state for the record your party affiliation?
	Oh, Republican.
	I'm a registered Republican.
	Okay.
	Recorder, I'm going to ask you a very direct question.
	Did you personally do anything to sabotage the election, the 2022 election, including some type of activity performed on the printers to make the printers not print correctly?
	Why would he ask that question?
	Absolutely not.
	As mentioned previously, Election Day operations are not under my statutory control, but certainly, irrespective of that, I certainly wouldn't have done that.
	I certainly wouldn't have done that.
	Well, in both the August primary, the November general election, we'll continue to analyze it, we'll continue to hopefully improve it.
	I'm already talking with the state legislature about maybe changes to our law so that we can continue to improve the system.
	But no, to answer your question directly, Joe, that was unacceptable.
	And the first thing that I tell every single new employee is that integrity is of the utmost importance to this office, both because of the values that we should seek to cherish and because of the intense spotlight.
	And so even something like an email like that.
	That Mr. Blum referenced, we would, of course, document and we produced.
	I assume that email was produced by our public records office, and we do that because it's the appropriate thing to do and because we have nothing to hide.
	Okay, final question, Mr. Recorder, and thank you.
	Are you aware of anybody who purposely interfered with the printer's ability to print ballots dark enough to be read by precinct-based tabulators?
	Absolutely not.
	Okay, thank you, Mr. Recorder, and we appreciate you taking your time to be here.
	Nothing further, your honor.
	Yeah, he said Panama City, not Panama, everybody.
	He's got a couple of quick questions.
	Recorder, is it true that you did not support my client in the election for governor's race?
	I don't believe I ever made a single public comment about Ms. Lake's candidacy or...
	Her as a person prior to November 8, 2022.
	Isn't it true that you ran a political action committee that was opposed and spent money opposing my client for governor?
	That is 100% false.
	Oh.
	100% false?
	Correct.
	Thank you.
	And I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor.
	I hope he's got the receipt to prove that wrong.
	Thank you, Mr. Richard.
	You're excused, sir.
	I just want to take about a minute to address the technical issue, Your Honor.
	As I've informed this court, my audio-video specialist and I did come to this courtroom and test our audio-video equipment on this court system, Your Honor, and we used a cable that was attached in this Desk here that is no longer present.
	Everything functioned perfectly at that test, Your Honor.
	And so we came today and that cable's gone and we're using a different cable.
	It's my understanding the staff is working with the technical side to try to fix what's happening.
	But I wanted the court to be aware that we did do our due diligence and come before this court to do that.
	Thank you, Mr. Bloom.
	Okay.
	Who would be your next witness?
	I hope the lawyer has the exhibits to contradict that.
	Otherwise, you ask a question you don't have the answer to and get that answer.
	Not the best strategy.
	But we had heard multiple reports that he and or Bill Gates of Maricopa County, not Bill Gates, the jibby jab man, had funded or been involved with a political action committee that was opposed to MAGA Republicans.
	So I'm curious about that.
	Sir, if you'll make your way in front of my clerk, she will swear you in.
	If he's in Panama City, how far...
	Panama City from Maricopa County, what is that, like a four-hour flight?
	Thank you, sir.
	If you'll just make your way over to the witness stand.
	I loves chicken.
	What is that?
	That's a chicken.
	Okay, this guy, I've not seen this guy.
	Have I seen this guy's face before?
	Oh, he looks nervous.
	As soon as you're ready...
	Mr. Olson, you may proceed.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Good morning, Mr. Jarrett.
	Morning.
	Can you please state your full name for the record?
	Robert Scott Jarrett.
	And what is your occupation?
	I am the co-elections director.
	I oversee in-person voting and tabulation.
	Tabulation.
	How long have you held that position?
	I was appointed by the Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, in June 2019.
	Can you please explain to the court what your role is in overseeing elections in that capacity?
	Yeah, so I oversee all in-person voting operations, which, and for that, I actually report up to both the Maricopa Kennedy Board of Supervisors and the Recorder, so that'd be the early in-person, as well as the election day operations.
	That includes recruitment and training of poll workers.
	That includes our warehouse operations for distributing all materials and supplies out to voting locations.
	And then I also oversee all tabulation functions.
	Being nervous is not a bad thing, people.
	It might even be a good thing.
	A lot of liars are prepared.
	It includes all tabulation functions.
	What do you mean by that?
	So that would include tabulation at our Central Count facility, so where we had about 84% of the early ballots come through and be tabulated at Central Count.
	He's not blinking very much.
	That would also include at our voting locations where we have an on-site tabulator as well.
	And so it would include the programming of that equipment or the staff that do the actual programming.
	I oversee them and supervise them.
	As well as any of the tabulation that happens on site, so the poll workers and the training on how they would assist voters as they are inserting their ballots into those tabulators.
	And are you following the procedures set forth in the 2019 election procedure manual when you're performing the tests of the tabulators prior to an election?
	That's correct.
	And would those procedures require you to perform logic and accuracy testing?
	That's correct.
	What is logic and accuracy testing?
	So the logic and accuracy test, that is two different sets of tests for a federal or a statewide election that requires that a test be performed by the county itself, as well as a test performed by the Secretary of State.
	So I don't oversee the Secretary of State's logic and accuracy test.
	I have to make the equipment available for the Secretary of State's logic and accuracy test.
	For the county's logic and accuracy test, that is to run test ballots through and...
	For the county's tests, it's thousands of test ballots through our tabulation equipment, both the central count tabulation equipment, as well as the tabulation equipment that will be used at the vote centers to make sure that they're accurately programmed to tabulate those ballots.
	And when you say that to make sure that they're accurately programmed to tabulate those ballots, what are you referring to being programmed?
	So for every election, we have to design a unique election program to tabulate the specific ballot because each ballot is unique or specific to an election.
	In Maricopa County, we had over 12,000 different ballot styles.
	So for all the various different precincts that we have in Maricopa County, as well as our early ballot style, our provisional ballot style, and our election day ballot style.
	So it is essentially making sure that the tabulation equipment will then be able to read a ballot and be able to determine how that, if a voter fills in that ballot, that it will accurately count the votes for those ballots.
	And so it's very important for the tabulator to read the ballots, that it be properly programmed with respect to the ballot definition, correct?
	That's correct.
	Maricopa County uses ballot-on-demand printers, correct?
	That's correct.
	What is a ballot-on-demand printer?
	So a ballot-on-demand printer, we have two different ballot-on-demand printers.
	One is a Lexmark printer and one is an Okie printer.
	And those allow us at our voting locations to print any one of those 12,000 ballot styles.
	And in performing logic and accuracy testing prior to the 2022 general election, Did your office perform logic and accuracy testing with test ballots from ballot-on-demand printers in the precinct-based tabulators?
	So, yes, we did.
	We printed ballots from our ballot-on-demand printers, and those were included in the test that the Secretary of State did.
	We also performed stress testing before the logic and accuracy test with ballots printed from our ballot-on-demand printers that went through both central count tabulation equipment as well as our precinct-based tabulators for the voting locations.
	And how were those test ballots configured in terms of the size of the ballot?
	Why do they have 12,000 ballots?
	They were the exact same size of the ballot that we were using in the general election.
	And what size was that, sir?
	A 20-inch ballot.
	20-inch ballot.
	What would happen if a ballot was printed out of a ballot-on-demand printer at the vote center?
	And it was not able to be read.
	If it was printed with a 19-inch image.
	On 20-inch paper.
	And run through the tabulator.
	It would not have been read.
	Answer it.
	Answer it.
	You need to be more specific with your question.
	It can't get much more specific than that, sir.
	We talked about the ballot definition.
	And for the 2022 general election, Maricopa was operating with a 20-inch ballot image, correct?
	That's correct.
	Tabulators at the vote center were programmed to accept and read a ballot with a 20-inch image, correct?
	That's correct.
	What would happen if the image if the ballot-on-demand printer printed out a 19-inch image on the 20-inch paper and ran it through the tabulator?
	We did not specifically test for that in this specific election because none of the ballots on our ballot-on-demand printers had a 19-inch ballot.
	They all had a 20-inch ballot.
	What would have happened?
	I can answer a question about our testing related to the 20-inch ballot that was installed on all of our ballot-on-demand printers.
	Well, I hope they have...
	If a 19-inch image was installed, or strike that, if a 19-inch ballot image was printed out...
	On a ballot-on-demand printer and run through the tabulator that was configured for the 2022 general election, would that tabulator accept that ballot or reject it?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	First, this calls for speculation.
	And second, I think the witness just said he hasn't run that test.
	I got your objection speculation without speaking objection.
	So, Mr. Jarrett.
	Were any ballots rejected for being 19 inches on 20?
	Haven't understood the question.
	Just have it rephrased.
	He understood the question.
	I appreciate the objection.
	He says, what would happen?
	If you don't know, don't guess.
	Just tell us you don't know.
	So do you want the question re-asked or rephrased, sir, before you answer?
	Were any ballots rejected for that reason?
	I'm willing to say that.
	I don't know specifically for this 2020 election.
	I know based on my historical knowledge, the time marks on the ballot matter, and it would need to be a 20-inch ballot to run through that tabulation equipment.
	But we did not specifically test a 19-inch ballot through the 2022 tabulation equipment because there were no 19-inch ballot images installed on our ballot-on-demand printers.
	Prior to the 2022 general election, did Maricopa County employ a 19-inch ballot image?
	Yes, we did.
	And when did Maricopa County employ a 19-inch ballot?
	image just prior to the 2022 general election.
	The most recent election would be the August 2022 primary election.
	Did Maricopa County perform logic and accuracy testing?
	Strike that.
	What evidence exists that shows the results of the logic and accuracy testing that you say was performed in action with the 2022 general election.
	um So, the stress testing, we have a report that summarizes that stress testing that we performed.
	So, I'm aware that would be documentation.
	I also know that the Secretary of State...
	Produces a summary-level report for their testing that they performed using those ballot-on-demand printers, 20-inch ballot, on our precinct-based tabulators, our vote center tabulators.
	So if we were to issue a subpoena or a discovery request, would your office be able to produce such testing results?
	I can produce them for the ones that Maricopa Gahannes has that information.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	I presume they know if a ballot got rejected for being a 19-inch on a 20-inch page.
	Presume.
	I hope they have that.
	Introduce what has been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 3. Excuse me, 2. Which is the 2022 elections plan.
	And it's up on the screen if you can see that.
	I can see it.
	And is this a document that you oversaw the creation of?
	That's correct.
	And what's the purpose of this document, sir?
	This purpose was to establish the guidance that the Elections Department would use.
	In carrying out the August primary election and the November general election.
	And it is to present that information to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors so that they can approve the plan.
	And then our team within the Elections Department will implement that plan based on this document.
	It seems our local community has found...
	How much effort is put in showing the pack by your office in creating this plan?
	A significant amount of effort.
	And why such a significant amount of effort?
	Because carrying out elections in the second largest voting jurisdiction with millions of different voters and hundreds of different voting locations and then tabulating millions of different ballots takes a significant amount of planning and preparations.
	And part of that is because you want these elections to go off without a hitch, all things considered, correct?
	I'd say there's no perfect election, but yes, to minimize the issues and then be able to have redundancy plans to be able to respond to those issues.
	What were some of the issues on Election Day then?
	I'd like to go to the page that's bait stamped last three digits 41, which is page 11 of the actual document.
	So let's operate on the basis they have to have evidence of ballots that were rejected or not read.
	And while we're doing that, sir, do you have any reason to not believe that this is a true and accurate copy of the 2022 election plan?
	I have no reason to believe.
	I take your word for that.
	And this is your council's production, so do you have any reason to disbelieve?
	No, I do not.
	Okay.
	Pull us to the relevant provisions.
	John, at this time, I'd like to move to enter this exhibit into the record.
	Exhibit two?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	An objection?
	No objection, Your Honor.
	Exhibit two is admitted.
	This is not my problem.
	This is not my issue here.
	Uh-oh.
	The spinning wheel of death?
	Never going against a Sicilian when death is on the line?
	If this doesn't come back ASAP, ASAP Rocky will go back to the other feed.
	How much training we need to provide.
	Uh-oh.
	How many voting locations that we need to identify and find.
	How many check-in stations that we will need in each of our voting locations.
	How much paper we need to procure.
	So all of those types of information are based off the forecast.
	How much of an effort does your office place on?
	So, every election is unique.
	So, we...
	Go back to historical elections, similar or like-type elections, to try to identify how many people will participate in those different elections, because that's the best guiding post.
	So usually it's the most recent, like elections.
	So in this case, it would have been the 2018 gubernatorial election or the 2014 gubernatorial election.
	But then we also use other factors, other similar and close elections, so the 2020 elections, differences in how a The difference in the turnout between a gubernatorial election and the subsequent presidential election, how that impacts turnout.
	And then we also went back to decades and decades of turnout rates and ranges to identify.
	So a significant amount of effort goes into forecasting turnout.
	And is that analysis performed in-house, or do you outsource it to an outside?
	It's performed in house.
	And is it fair to say that you rely on those forecasts in planning for the election, correct?
	Yes.
	Is that an audio problem at the court?
	That audio is out, not on my feed.
	That's correct.
	And you generally trust those forecasts before you delegate them in this document.
	Before you go ahead and start actually undertaking actual efforts to manage the election.
	We understand that they're forecasts.
	So they're not exact.
	But yes, we use those forecasts to make decisions.
	Okay.
	And what were your forecasts for the midterms and what happened on election day?
	I'd like to turn to the page that is bait-stamped.
	Last three digits, 043.
	It's actually page 13 of the actual document.
	You see that, sir?
	I do.
	Do you see where it says the first forecast model, the 2022 November general election?
	I do.
	And under 2022 projected voters for election day turnout, the forecast was for 291,863, correct?
	But Maricopa County alone, okay.
	That's correct.
	And if we turn to the next page, Bates Dam 044, you'll see a second forecast model.
	Do you see that, sir?
	Yep.
	I do.
	How many printers do you have?
	And the projected turnout under the second forecast model was a lower number of 251,615, correct?
	That's correct.
	Why did you do two forecast models?
	Again, because you're looking at historical.
	Elections and variances can occur.
	So the first forecast model looked at 2014 and 2018.
	My recollection, 2014 was a historically low turnout year.
	2018 was one of the higher turnout years.
	So we expanded this model to look at more and broader number of elections to include in that forecast model.
	So it was the two combined which gave us a guiding.
	And when I look at this, 251,615, we had 248,000.
	2022 primary election, correct?
	In May of 2022.
	And how was the turnout for the election day turnout for the primary, the turnout for the election day turnout for the primary for the 2022?
	I don't remember the specific, but it was, I think, right around 106,000 or 108,000, which was in line with our turnout forecast for the August primary as well.
	Okay.
	And if we turn back to the page that's bait-stamped, the preceding page 043, and you see the first forecast model for the 2020 the preceding page 043 and you see the first forecast model for the 2022 August primary election
	I can't see too good.
	That's 108,080, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that's associated with the first forecast model, which was the higher turnout, correct?
	That's correct.
	The second forecast model, which had a lower election day turnout for the primary...
	They'd better come back to it.
	...was not the most accurate.
	I think they're laying the foundations down to say how big they knew this was going to be, and then they're going to get into the...
	It was within the range of both, but yes, this first forecast model for the August primary aligned closer with the turnout for...
	So now they're going to say, you knew all of this, and what happened on the day of?
	And then they're going to get into the problems.
	They better suggest the problem, lay the groundwork for how serious they knew this was going to be, then get into...
	Did the forecast strike that?
	You recall that there were issues with ballots being rejected on November 8, 2022, in the election day, correct?
	I don't recall issues with ballots being rejected.
	Do you recall tabulators rejecting ballots at at least 70 vote centers during Election Day?
	Yes, I recall that there was about 70 voting locations that we sent technicians out to change printer settings at because our tabulators were not reading those ballots in.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Did your forecast model for the second forecast, where you forecasted 251,615 election day turnout figures, do you see that?
	Yes, I do.
	Did that take into account the problems you just mentioned in terms of the specific question?
	Was the Election Day issues that we just discussed, and by the county's own admission, occurred at 70 vote centers?
	70 vote centers.
	Was that event factored into, or an event like it, factored into the second forecast model?
	So, first, let me clarify.
	I didn't acknowledge that there were 70 vote centers that had printer issues.
	I acknowledge that we sent out 70. Technicians, the 70 voting locations.
	Thanks for the distinction there.
	Distinction without a difference.
	Higher historical models turnout.
	There was no analysis to include if there was an issue on site at any voting location.
	So there was no analysis in the second forecast model of 251,000 projected turnout that took into account a disruption in the election on election day, November 8, 2022.
	None of the forecast models include that type of one.
	Oh.
	Makes total sense.
	Would a disruption such as what was experienced, I mean, would you agree with me that there was a disruption on November 8, 2022 in the election?
	I would say that we had some printers that were not printing some timing marks on our ballots dark enough to be read in by our tabulation equipment.
	Would you call that a disruption?
	Voters had legal and ballot options to still be able to participate within our voting locations.
	We're not captured as a disruption.
	So you don't believe that what happened on November 8th was not a disruption in the election process?
	Zoom in more.
	Add flames.
	I do not capture it as that.
	Are you aware that Supervisor Gates came out on Election Day and said 20% of all vote centers were affected by these issues without being rejected by the tabulators?
	Oh, I'm aware of that.
	Again, we didn't have ballots rejected by tabulators.
	They were not being read in by tabulators.
	Sorry, he actually...
	A disruption when voters still had valid options to participate.
	Oh, what, to go drive to another center?
	In our secure door number three, which is a similar process that eight other counties use as their only option for voters to be able to return their ballots.
	Yeah, Mr. Jerry, you're not answering my question.
	My question isn't what other options existed for voters.
	Is that a disruption?
	Would you agree that there was a disruption?
	Of at least 20% of the vote centers in Maricopa that caused delays in the voting process.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	The witness has already answered this question, so whether he characterizes it as a disruption.
	It's a different question.
	I'll overrule if you can answer it, you may, sir.
	Good.
	Good, Judge.
	I'm not changing my response.
	Nothing better than not changing your response.
	Do you believe that...
	Did you hear of any reports of wait times to vote of over 60 minutes?
	Yes, I did.
	Do you call that a disruption?
	What is the target wait time in your model?
	20 minutes.
	Do you know?
	On average, a half an hour.
	Okay.
	Do you call an hour wait a disruption?
	No, because they still have a chance to go drive to another location, if that one works.
	Bait stamped 047.
	It's page 17. Would you call wait times, twice your estimated wait times, a disruption?
	Yes or no?
	Do you see the section entitled time needed to vote a ballot, Mr. Jarrett?
	Yes, I do.
	And do you see the second paragraph under that section where it says, on average...
	We estimate that it will take voters between 4.4 and 6.4 minutes to vote in the 2022 primary ballot and between 8.5 and 10.5 minutes to vote the 2022 November general election ballot.
	That's to complete and fill out the ballot.
	Yeah, not to wait an hour and a half in line to slip it in.
	Testimony then that 30 minutes is the time audit projected for a normal election.
	To enter into the vote center, cast your ballot, and leave?
	No, our average was 30 minutes in line to check in.
	Why would that be?
	And then to a few minutes to receive their ballot, upwards of 8.5 to 10.5.
	So in the 2020 general election, 8.5 to 10.5 minutes to complete the ballot.
	And then there could be some time to then wait in line at the tabulator to put in their ballot and feed it into a tabulator.
	Did you ever become aware of multiple reports at various vote centers in Maricopa County where wait times exceeded two hours?
	Oh, mamacita.
	I'm aware of it.
	Exceeded two hours, no.
	You were not aware of that?
	What?
	Our data shows that some voting locations approaching two hours, not exceeding.
	Oh, okay.
	Thank you for the distinction.
	Without a difference again.
	Okay.
	Even at some locations approaching two hours, would you consider that a disruption?
	There you go.
	I'm not changing my mind.
	That's why we post wait time on our website.
	That's why it's not an answer.
	It's highly publicized and advertised.
	Oh, so you're publicizing the problems.
	In all of those locations, we had close-by locations.
	So, for example, Biltmore was approaching two hours in the last hour.
	Would you call that a disruption?
	With two miles away at Faith Lutheran, there was a voting location that had a one-minute wait time.
	During that same time, the longest time.
	That last hour of the day.
	So there were options for voters to be able to participate even at those other voting locations.
	What are you basing the accuracy of the reported wait times on?
	On information that poll workers return to us.
	So it's the number of voters in line at that point in time.
	They report those every 15 minutes.
	And then we can calculate the wait time based on how long it would take.
	Someone to check in at a voting location.
	So if those poll workers were testifying under oath of wait times over exceeding two hours, would you call that a disruption?
	How would that square with what the county was reporting on its system?
	Are they just mistaken or making it up?
	People can make estimates, but unless they're actually timing them, they could be inaccurate.
	Our wait times are based off exactly how long it takes a voter to check in through that process, have a ballot printed, and based off those numbers of voters that are standing in line at that point in time.
	And how is that figure calculated?
	You say it's based off that number.
	How do you calculate it?
	Based off prior elections.
	And so we can gauge how long it takes a voter to get checked in.
	Then we can also see how many voters are checking in at a voting location throughout the day.
	The day of.
	So you're basing the wait time calculation on prior elections, not on what's actually happening on scene at the day of election?
	That's what I understand.
	Based on how quickly a voter can check in through that process.
	That's correct.
	You just said something different about two seconds ago.
	Sir, I want to go back to the earlier question about the 19-inch ballot image being placed on a 20-inch paper.
	Did you hear of any reports of that occurring in the 2022 general election?
	We're back now to the crux.
	I did not.
	This is the crux.
	If that occurred, would that be a failure of Maricopa County's election process?
	Yes, but it wouldn't be intentional.
	It's just gross negligence.
	It's not intentional.
	We didn't do it.
	I'm not aware of it occurring.
	That's not the question.
	I'd be surprised that there was a ballot-on-demand printer that had a 19-inch ballot on it.
	I understand that, sir.
	And the reason why is we did not design a 2022 general election on a 19-inch ballot.
	That ballot does not exist.
	The only ballot that exists is a 20-inch ballot.
	And when you say we designed, who designed the ballot?
	Is that outsourced to another company or is that done in-house by Maricopa?
	In-house by Maricopa County's staff.
	What department would that staff fall under?
	Is there a specific name for it?
	Our ballot tabulation team.
	So it reports to me.
	The BTT.
	And do you maintain records as to the ballot definition that was created for the 2022 general election?
	Yes, we have records of all the ballots that were designed.
	And so I'll go back to my question again.
	If a 19-inch ballot image was put on a 20-inch paper in the 2022 general election, Would that be a failure of your election process?
	It would.
	If something like that happened, which I don't know how it would, yes, it would have been a mistake.
	Could that have also been a deliberate act?
	Oh, boy.
	Again, you're asking me to speculate about things that I have knowledge of.
	Could it have been?
	I don't know if it could have been a deliberate act or not.
	I don't believe that that occurred.
	I hope they know that it occurred.
	How involved are you in creating the ballot definition?
	So my team does, and then I overview it, and I'll review examples of those.
	Oh, boy.
	I don't have any further questions.
	Okay.
	The problem is the intentional stuff.
	We talked about it yesterday in the decision.
	What was that?
	That was not me, by the way.
	Your Honor, a quick clarifying question as to how the court would like us to proceed.
	We intend to call Mr. Jarrett in our case in chief tomorrow.
	And so if the court would like me to reserve all questions for him until tomorrow, we are happy.
	Oh, no way.
	No, no, no.
	However, I would like to ask him a few questions directed just to what was just discussed during the direct examination of Mr. Jarrett.
	You can choose to do it either way you wish.
	I won't dictate how you try your case.
	Witnesses under oath.
	Understood, Your Honor.
	I'll have just a very brief cross then.
	Thank you.
	You know what?
	Hold on.
	I would rather they keep him under oath until tomorrow.
	They can't take this guy out of here to allow him to rectify, prep, and respond properly tomorrow.
	Thank you for being here today.
	Just a few very quick questions.
	I believe you testified that your election day plan called for, you know, assumed an average wait time of a half hour for each vote.
	Was that what your testimony?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	In our canvas presentation, we had the exact number.
	Recall it off the top of my head right now.
	Thank you, Mr. Jarrett.
	Are you aware that one of the political parties urged their voters to forego early voting and vote in person on Election Day?
	Yes, I'm aware of that.
	Okay, you're aware of that today?
	That's correct.
	Were you aware of that when you prepared your analysis for the Election Day plan?
	No, I was not.
	Okay, so I'm assuming that you tell me, please, this urging by a political party was not factored into your election day plan.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay, thank you.
	Prior to each election, strike that.
	Are you familiar with the term EMS?
	Emergency medical services.
	The election management system.
	What does the election management system do?
	So it is our tabulation system.
	So it's what we use to program and design all the ballots.
	It is also the system that as we're running ballots through our tabulators, that it's then counting those ballots.
	It's also then what sends ballots to be everything that was related to.
	The ballot creation to tabulating the ballots to reporting results.
	Everything that was related to the ballot creation to tabulating the ballots to reporting results is housed within our election management system.
	Okay.
	How many elections can be housed within the EMS?
	Well, multiple elections can be housed, given the number of ballots that Maricopa County has one house on our election management system at a time.
	Okay, so for the 2022 general...
	Did you only have the 2022 general on the EMS?
	One house on our election management system at a time.
	Okay, so for the 2022 general, did you only have the 2022 general on the EMS?
	That's correct.
	That's what my understanding is.
	We only had those and all the data related to those files.
	What happens to the other data, the 2022 primary?
	What happened to it?
	So we transfer those to backup archived storage devices and store those.
	We have one storage device of that on site.
	And Mr. Jarrett, you testified earlier that I believe you said you did not design a 19-inch ballot for the 2022 general election.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	So if it was not designed for the 2022 general election, does it stand to reason that there would not have been a 19-inch ballot on the EMS?
	That's correct.
	That's why there was no 19 inch ballot on the EMS.
	Does that also mean that there would have been no 19 inch ballot programmed into the ballot on demand printers?
	That's correct.
	Thank you, Mr. Jarrett.
	You were asked about deliberate acts with regard to the printers.
	Mr. Jarrett, I'm going to ask you a very direct question.
	Did you personally do anything to any ballot-on-demand printer to cause it to print too lightly to be read by a precinct-based tabulator?
	I didn't do anything.
	Did you give an order to any of your personnel to do any such thing?
	I did not.
	Are you aware of any order like that being given?
	I'm not aware of that.
	Are you aware of any of your personnel engaging in such an act?
	I am not aware.
	Are you aware of anybody?
	Are you a good boy, sir?
	Are you a good boy, sir?
	Are you a good boy?
	That's all I have, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Here's a question.
	Did you ask anybody to load the printers with ink?
	A brief recourse, sir.
	Did you ask?
	Well, redirect, excuse me.
	Did you ask them to put ink in the printers?
	Very well.
	Did you guys have enough ink at the voting locations?
	Mr. Jarrett, I believe you were just asked questions about whether or not members of a political party encouraged their constituents in the Republican Party to come out and vote on Election Day.
	Call that?
	Yes.
	And was that event factored into your forecast for turnout on Election Day?
	When we made the initial forecast for the plans that were submitted to the board in May, no, it was not.
	So your estimates in the forecast would necessarily be low because they didn't take into account that factor, correct?
	Our forecasts.
	Forecast of 251,000, our lowest model, and there was 248,000.
	No, I think he means for the time per vote.
	I think they pretty accurately forecasted how many people turned out in person on Election Day.
	Tell me how that squares when, you know, Councilor just asked you a question, you know, were you aware that members of the Republican Party were telling Republican voters to come out on Election Day and you didn't account for that?
	How does that square with a lower forecast number?
	Well, we had record turnout, near record turnout for the 2022 general election, so 64%.
	You have the only turnout in recent several decades that exceeded that was actually 2018, which was 64 point something percent turnout as well.
	So our forecast model was forecasting at potentially the highest turnout percentage that voters would turn out.
	So that's why it captured and...
	Forecasted 251,000, which was very close to 248,000.
	Actually, your forecast model, you had the other one forecast at over 290,000, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that model didn't take into account Republican leaders telling their Republicans to come out on Election Day and vote, correct?
	It did not.
	It factored in 2020 presidential and 2016 presidential factors, which usually a presidential election is much higher.
	So that's why it was ranging up to $290,000.
	Awesome.
	How much ink did you guys buy?
	How many cartridges did you have?
	Did we lose the audio again?
	Show him a 19-inch ballot image.
	Show him a 19-inch ballot.
	to a...
	20-inch paper.
	Do you recall that?
	And I asked you questions about that.
	Yes, I recall.
	Do you have any idea how that could occur?
	I do not.
	Would it require two different ballot definitions to be installed on the MS?
	Your first question asks if I have any idea how it could occur, and I said I do not.
	Do you know what a sitebook is?
	Yes, that's our check-in station.
	And the sitebook pulls up the voter, correct?
	Yes, it's connected to the recorders voter registration system through a virtual private network, secure.
	So then when a voter checks in, it pulls up their specific information and then would alert our ballot-on-demand printer which ballot style to print.
	So where does the ballot definition reside then?
	So it's on a laptop that's connected to our ballot-on-demand printers.
	Ballot on demand.
	Thank you.
	I have nothing further.
	Okay, so I'm...
	Excuse the witness?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yes, Ron.
	Subject to recall tomorrow in our case-in-chief, of course.
	Very well.
	Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.
	Step down, sir.
	Strategically, I might have now wanted to keep him under oath so that they can't try to, you know, prep his testimony for tomorrow because he'd still be under oath.
	So I hope they have evidence of the printout of 19-inch ballots.
	I've allocated some time to take a mid-morning break.
	Some of that has to do with my court reporter.
	So we do need to take a recess for that.
	Who would you be calling as your next witness?
	Your Honor, as a matter of fact, I was just talking with counsel about asking the court for a short break.
	I want to reassess, given the time, if I may.
	Yes, you certainly may because I'm going to have the mid-morning break here.
	So what I'm trying to assess, though, is whether I can shave five minutes off of that or not.
	Your Honor, whatever you...
	You need a full 15 minutes.
	No, Your Honor.
	10 minutes.
	We'll be back on the record then.
	We'll stand at recess.
	1242.
	Rice, I don't know why I'm rising.
	I gotta stretch my legs out.
	I've been sitting on my sciatic nerve for too long.
	Lake's attorneys are terrible.
	I disagree.
	I actually disagree.
	I just hope that they have the evidence to demonstrably prove.
	Whoa!
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me go here.
	Hold on.
	Stop it.
	I don't want to hear that music.
	Stop it.
	Okay.
	Let me just go put that on mute in my back screen.
	Thank you.
	Where am I watching this?
	Okay, I'm watching it right there.
	All right, people.
	So that's very interesting.
	I don't think they're terrible.
	Classic RSBN.
	So by the way, it's a feed.
	I don't know how RSBN is getting a clean feed, a better audio without the delay that we had on the actual Zoom meeting.
	But to show gratitude, everybody, they say they're a viewer supported.
	So show some love.
	This is interesting.
	This is interesting.
	First of all, what I want to do, actually, before I get too far into anything, I want to read the Rumble Rants.
	And I think I have a way of being able to do it.
	12.52, we should be coming back.
	If I go to share screen and I go to window, I might have to do it something like this.
	I might have to bring them up one by one.
	And let's see if this works.
	If I go present, share screen.
	And yeah, here we go.
	Look at this.
	I can bring one up here.
	Let's bring up a RumbleRat, people.
	You're a mensch, Viva.
	That means a gentleman in Yiddish.
	Thanks for everything you do.
	From KushKush3.
	Thank you very much.
	It looks easier than it is.
	I'll tell you that much.
	It looks easier than it is.
	But that's not to say it's not that hard.
	I'd be doing it anyhow.
	I'm fortunate that it's something I'd be doing anyhow, and it seems to be value-added for other people.
	J.R. Kastian, 12,000 ballot styles.
	Each precinct may have local issues that are being voted upon.
	I see now.
	Okay, such as a local school board position, town-specific referendums.
	Okay, good point.
	Thank you.
	That was a $1 Rumble rant on Rumble.
	There's two more, which we'll get up and just finish this up real quick like.
	Real quick like the Rumble rants, which I can't bring up in StreamYard.
	Rel21000 says, up to two hours to vote, but you can get the jab quicker than you can roll up your sleeve.
	There's no question about that.
	And for free, by the way.
	Not only that, they'll pay you.
	If you're in New York, you'll get french fries and a beer.
	You taste that?
	That tastes like that pig.
	There's no other word.
	Thank you, Viva Narnia.
	Thank you very much.
	$20 Rumble Rants.
	What was the guy's name?
	De Blasio.
	Chomping down a burger and french fries to tell everybody to go get the jab.
	You taste that?
	That's the taste of freedom that comes along with being jabbed.
	We got exactly.
	There is no way they don't have a 19-inch ballot.
	They asked too many questions about it.
	It will be great evidence and really hard to discredit.
	The thing is this.
	You have to presume.
	They can't drop evidence like that to surprise the witness.
	They have to disclose evidence that they know they intend on revealing.
	So they had to have disclosed it to opposing counsel.
	It's got to be one of the exhibits of their however many.
	I think they had 240 exhibits.
	So it had to be.
	They have to have it.
	Opposing counsel has to know they have it.
	Because they can't just be asking about a hypothetical 19-inch ballot that they don't have hard evidence of was not being read on election day.
	Okay.
	Viva, when you argue with the missus, does she hate when you go into lawyer mode?
	I don't argue with the missus, Comet.
	I know better.
	Missy Leger, love you, Viva.
	I love you, Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	Let me see.
	Okay, so that's very interesting.
	So we got the court recorder.
	Oh, let's just bring up something to refresh our collective memories.
	I don't even know which one of these things I'm on.
	Holy Fry Holy from RLBTE $10 Rumble Rand.
	Thank you very much.
	Let me just, let's just pull up a video.
	Just refresh everybody's memory.
	Remember that guy that we just saw talking?
	He didn't identify any...
	What was the word he used?
	What was the word he used?
	He didn't say problems.
	Any interruptions?
	Viva Frye.
	Twitter.
	Bill Gates Maricopa.
	Let's just see if I can get the video.
	I think this is the video.
	Let me just get the right video.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	And you're going to see a witness.
	You're going to see the witness that we saw this morning.
	Let's just refresh our memories while we have a small break.
	Hello, Maricopa County.
	I'm Bill Gates, the chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
	Never met a Bill Gates that could be trusted.
	And we're here to give you an update on how things are going so far with the election.
	We've already had almost 44,000 people show up this morning, check in.
	Nice.
	What small problem?
	By the way, look at Richer's body language right now.
	He's too embarrassed to look into the eye of the rest of the world, that being the lens of the camera.
	Get deep breaths.
	I'm in big shit right now.
	This is not going down the way we had anticipated.
	Why?
	Why?
	You've identified an issue.
	What's the underlying cause?
	Why are they not going through?
	Is it because they're 19 inches being read by 20 inches?
	I don't know.
	I'm still not sure I understand the mechanism here.
	You're running them through.
	They're not going through.
	The good thing is, is we do, first of all, we're trying to fix this problem as quickly as possible.
	Trying to fix the problem as quickly as possible on election day.
	And we also have a redundancy in place.
	If you can't put the ballot in the tabulator, then you can simply place it here in where you see the number.
	Yeah, then when does it get read?
	This is a secure box where those ballots will be kept.
	For later this evening, where we'll bring him in here to central count to tabulate.
	Look at Richard.
	This would function much like early voting functions in that we would get your ballot back.
	Once we've signature verified it, we would send it to our central tabulators.
	Ballots that are in here will already be in effect signature verified, so we won't need to confirm identity, but we will central tabulate them.
	I still don't understand what that means.
	This is actually what the majority of Arizona counties do on Election Day all the time.
	And just one thing to keep in mind, we have 223 vote centers across the county.
	223 vote centers across the county, and roughly 55 of those are going to have problems.
	So go find another one and hope it doesn't have a problem.
	So if there are lines at the location you're at or issues with the tabulator, if you would prefer to go to another location, Oh, you can do it.
	You've got Bill Gates' permission to go drive around, try to find another polling station, voting station that doesn't have massive long lineups.
	One in five chance you're going to stumble on another one that has the exact same problem you just fled from.
	No matter where you go, as long as you're a registered voter here in Maricopa County.
	Thanks so much.
	And everybody who haven't yet, get out and vote.
	If you can.
	If you can.
	So that's the video.
	Get out and vote.
	If you haven't already done it, get out and vote.
	If you can, if you don't have a job or kids, I guess everybody gets a holiday.
	Get out and vote.
	If you can find another voting station.
	The 19-inch ballot must have come from the review of the ballots yesterday.
	Dude, I have no dog in the race.
	No horse in the race.
	No skin in the game.
	No cat in the fight.
	Just from a legal perspective, from a practice perspective, yeah, they better have that evidence.
	And you know what?
	It's interesting, actually.
	Maybe it would not have needed to have been disclosed in advance if they only got it yesterday by virtue of consulting the ballots.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	And what do we got here?
	Retro Turbo Incabulator.
	I don't know what that means.
	I do want...
	I kind of look like my uncle, actually, Adam.
	My uncle-in-law.
	I don't know what that means.
	Retro Turbo Encabulator.
	And I feel stupid that I should know what that means, but don't.
	So other than that, by the way, I'm going to just take some pressure off my sciatic.
	I got a nice...
	It's not a PewDiePie gaming chair.
	It's a better chair than what I was using for the last four months, but it's not...
	Okay, hold on.
	I was thinking Retro Turbo Encabulator.
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	Retro Turbo.
	Okay, so it comes up in search.
	So...
	What is this?
	I'm sharing it.
	I don't know if I'm going to get in copyright trouble.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'll bring it up.
	If we get in copyright...
	If it gets claimed, I think it's a joke.
	Okay, well, hold on.
	I think I discovered the joke here.
	Let's see.
	Retro Turbo in Cabulator.
	Here at Rockwell Automation's world headquarters, research has been proceeding to develop a line of automation products that establishes new standards for quality, technological leadership, and operating excellence.
	With customer success as our primary focus, work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal gram meters.
	Hold on, hold on.
	So this is supposed to be a joke in that it's not supposed to make sense, right?
	14 years later, retro-encabulators are twice as bad.
	Okay, fine.
	I'm going to watch this later.
	Everybody, I think it's an entire joke where probably he goes for two minutes and says absolutely nothing that makes any sense.
	That is the joke?
	That's got to be the joke.
	They're back.
	They are back.
	Guess who's back?
	Nope.
	Back again.
	Maricopa County.
	Tell a friend.
	Here we go.
	Parties in council.
	The representatives in council.
	What happened?
	I was just going to bring up a moment, a matter of housekeeping.
	You okay with Mr. Lam not being here?
	Mr. Olson?
	I need to go pee.
	All right.
	Okay.
	At the risk of...
	OSHA violations from my court reporter.
	What I would like to do is try and maximize the amount of time we have.
	Rather than starting at 1.30, we'll start back at 1 o 'clock, so we'll go from 12 to 1, cutting 30 minutes off of the lunch break.
	So we'll do that today and tomorrow.
	I'd like to start at 8.30 tomorrow rather than 9 o 'clock if we can, stretch a little more out of the day.
	But I think by 4.30, I don't want to burn the midnight oil on this.
	I think that we need to have focus and attention and be clear-minded.
	But I think starting at 8.30, coming back early from lunch, that I'm not taxing anybody's mental capacity with that.
	Do you agree, plaintiff?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Defendants?
	Mr. Conner?
	Conner agrees, Your Honor.
	So that's what we'll do.
	All right.
	Are you prepared for your next witness?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	We call Clay Parikh.
	Very well said.
	Rick, if you could come forward, sir, and stand in front of my clerk to be sworn, sir.
	Do we have this thing more again?
	Yes.
	There's a hot mic.
	There's a hot mic.
	Sir, if you could make your way around to the witness stand and have a seat.
	Ah, relief.
	As soon as your witness is situated, you may begin.
	Are you doing the questioning, Mr. Olson?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	RBSnetworkdonate.com forward slash donate.
	RBSnetwork.
	Good morning, Mr. Parikh.
	Could you please state your full name for the record?
	My name is Clay Uday Parikh.
	And where do you currently work?
	I work at Northrop Grumman, a defense contractor.
	And what do you do with Northrop Grumman?
	I'm an information security officer.
	I basically spend my week auditing classified systems, making sure the systems are functioning properly, looking for insider threat and those such actions.
	Do you have any experience with electronic voting systems?
	Yes, sir, I do.
	I have nine years of experience in three voting labs.
	It's actually two physical sites because Wiley transferred to NTS Laboratories, National Testing Lab, and then at ProVNV.
	Does this relate to, are you familiar with what's called the EAC, the Election Assistance Commission?
	Yes, sir, I am.
	In 2008, my very first tasking was to evaluate Wiley Laboratories' test procedures in which I had to evaluate the voting system guidelines.
	And did you perform testing on electronic voting systems in order to certify them in accordance with EAC guidelines?
	Yes, sir, I was.
	And you did that for how long?
	For nine years.
	And that was through ProVNV, a voting system testing lab?
	I was through a professional staffing company, and that's how I was contracted on, because none of the labs had a permanent security specialist.
	On their payroll.
	I was the only one.
	And when you say you refer to the labs, in this case ProV and V, what is a voting system testing lab?
	The voting system testing lab is where a vendor submits to the EAC a test plan.
	It gets submitted to the EAC, it gets approved, then they go to a voting system test lab.
	There's a project that's done up and they get tested.
	These tests can go.
	Either by the EAC for federal certification or they can go by the Secretary of State.
	That depends on the state's requirements under their laws as far as their certification efforts.
	Do you know what boating system testing lab certifies the electronic boating machines used in Maricopa County?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Relevance.
	I believe this line of questioning about certification is no longer on the table given the court's ruling earlier this week.
	Yeah, a lot of the question for certification, I mean qualifications, Yes, it's ProVMV.
	Do you have a background in cybersecurity, Mr. Parikh?
	I have about 20 years of experience in cybersecurity.
	Can you just briefly go through some of your qualifications with the court in cybersecurity?
	Yes, sir, I can.
	I have a Master of Science in cybersecurity.
	On a computer science track, I also have a bachelor's in computer science systems major.
	I have the certified information system security professional certification.
	I've had that since the beginning of 2007.
	That is the gold standard as far as security certifications are considered.
	I'm also a certified ethical hacker, and I'm also a certified hacking forensic investigator.
	What is a certified hacking forensic?
	Forensic investigator.
	That means you go in, you do a forensic analysis, specifically looking for malicious malware.
	You do root cause analysis.
	You find out what the malware was, how it infected, and that.
	These are not your standard forensics-type approaches that most law enforcement agencies would use.
	Their standard is a little bit slower because of the evidentiary stuff.
	But if you're in a...
	In an incident response center, as I've helped run in the past, when you have an emergency or something happens, you have to react then.
	And these are the type of actions that you learn.
	You learn to get in, do the analysis quickly, make sure you're secure in your analysis because you have to come up with remediation efforts.
	How long have you been at Northrop Grumman?
	13 years.
	Just about three years.
	So prior to working with Northrop Grumman, Did you work in a cyber capacity for the U.S. government?
	Yes, I have.
	Could you describe some of your positions starting for the past 15 years, 20 years that you've been involved in and what you did, just briefly?
	I've worked in anywhere from midsize companies that dealt with cybersecurity information assurance to as large as some of the larger ones.
	I've worked for Lockheed Martin.
	Which is a good tenure of my time.
	Lidos Corporation, BAE Systems.
	And in all those capacities, I did information assurance, cybersecurity.
	At one stint with a smaller company, I was to perform threat for an agency within the United States Army.
	Did you ever work with the Marshall Space Flight Center?
	Yes, I was.
	I was the IT security manager for the Enterprise Operations.
	Just briefly, what does the IT security manager do?
	I'm in charge of making sure the vulnerability scans were done, that all the security configurations, that all the governance and compliance that NASA developed for their security postures and daily operations and continuity of operations were followed.
	Did you ever work for the Army Corps of Engineers?
	Yes, sir.
	I was the deputy cyber manager for their enterprise operation, which It includes 52 major sites throughout the world.
	And in that capacity, what were your job responsibilities?
	I was the deputy cyber manager, and because of my certifications and qualifications, I helped the security operations center manager handle his task in monitoring, and I also helped the security incident response manager in her functions because they're the ones that react to when the Army Corps is attacked.
	They're attacked a lot.
	Do you possess a security clearance, Mr. Parikh?
	Yes, sir, I do.
	I'm currently a top secret cleared, but I've held SEI levels.
	So is this a voir dire to have him recognized as an expert?
	Did you ever work with the Army Threat Systems Management Office?
	Yes, sir.
	That's where I played threat.
	I attacked systems, whether it was an information system, a medical system, or a weapon system.
	Do you have any other certifications besides CISSP or the certified forensic, certified hacking forensic investigator or certified ethical hacker?
	Yes, sir.
	I have an ITIL-3 certification, which is an international process for handling IT service management.
	It's much like the Six Sigma.
	Several companies like Lockheed Modern have their own.
	It's called LM21.
	These are all process improvements to refine and affect the quality output and services that you provide.
	Are you familiar with the phrase root cause analysis?
	I am very familiar with the root cause analysis.
	Could you please just briefly explain what root cause analysis refers to?
	In simple terms, it's basically troubleshooting.
	But you have to find what cause...
	The initial issue to happen.
	Sometimes this can be very complicated.
	Sometimes it can be fairly easy.
	But you have to have an intense understanding of the overall process.
	This guy's got an intense understanding.
	And this root cause analysis could be done from what's called a governor's perspective, where you look at documentation, process, and procedures, because flaws within those can't.
	What just happened?
	Did I do that?
	Technical finding.
	I've done hundreds to probably thousands of root cause analysis in all different types of environments.
	Could you give an example of an actual event in which you led the effort for a root cause analysis?
	I still don't even know what that means, but I heard him say it.
	It sounded nice.
	I've done one for the Navy Marine Corps Internet, which was the largest weigh-in, which has tens of thousands of workstations.
	There was an issue that resolved.
	They were having, after upgrades of the operating systems, they had technical issues.
	And based on those type of issues, and allies didn't know what was going on, I requested that the biostate be provided and that...
	And that ended up the root cause because the problem systems have that, because they did not properly manage the bios.
	That's a low-level technical one.
	There's been others involved where the Air Force had what's, I would say, world-facing internet site.
	It was on the internet, got pulled down because of vulnerability was found.
	And I was put in charge to do the root cause analysis to find out how the system was compromised, what happened, and suggested the mitigation efforts.
	Have there ever been any criminal prosecutions that have resulted from your work?
	Oh yeah.
	Yes.
	I sent many people to jail.
	How many years in jail are you responsible for having sent me?
	So the federal government relied on your assessment of a situation in order to bring criminal charges against somebody?
	Several times.
	Some of those I cannot talk about because of the nature in the classification.
	Did you...
	Do an analysis of the events that took place in the Election Day operations in Maricopa County?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	And what did you do in terms of your assessment of that situation?
	I do like I do with any...
	System that's involved with electronic voting systems.
	I look at the state statutes and what they reported to the federal government, as in this case, Arizona follows HAVA, and that's in their laws and statutes.
	Then I go from that, look at the systems they use, then I look at their procedures.
	I downloaded the Secretary of State's Elections Manual, the Maricopa Elections Manual.
	I read through testimony, declarations.
	I reviewed the EAC certification of the electronic voting system, the test reports from ProVNB concerning the election system.
	I downloaded and read the applicable Title 16 part of the Arizona Statutes, which covers the election system.
	A lot of testimony.
	I've watched a lot of the video televised meetings that Maricopa conducted and a lot of the video testimonies.
	And did you interview or speak with any Election Day workers, like technicians who participated, retained by Maricopa?
	To work at the various vote centers on November 8, 2022?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	I had spoken with a, after seeing the declaration and an interview conducted for the declaration, I asked to interview them and ask specific questions.
	I like this guy.
	Did you perform an inspection of the ballots on behalf of plaintiff in connection with an inspection pursuant to ARS 16677?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	And when did that inspection take place?
	Yes.
	That was just yesterday.
	Okay.
	This is going to get good, people.
	Without saying what your conclusion was from that inspection, did you reach a conclusion?
	Oh, yeah.
	It confirmed my initial...
	My initial assumptions on the possible effects of what caused the technical issues.
	Yes, sir.
	I don't like that.
	He had an initial underlying belief.
	At this time, we'd like to offer Mr. Parikh as an expert.
	Arizona doesn't do that.
	Basically, you can ask the questions and then it's an objection as to foundation.
	Okay.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	See, that's what I did not understand.
	I'll get to that in a second.
	You examined the ballots in the inspection performed at EmTech yesterday, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	I was allowed to select the sampling per the request in the courts.
	Did you have a plan going into that inspection with what ballots you wanted to select and inspect?
	Yes, sir.
	Could you describe that plan?
	Through a FOIA request, the cast vote records were publicly available.
	I reviewed those, analyzed the data, and selected the randomness base so I could follow the court's directions for the petition.
	So I knew exactly what to request because it was time-consuming, and Maricopa County was gracious enough to give us that time, so I wanted to use it wisely and make my decision quickly and accurately.
	Barnes is in the House, people.
	Approximately.
	Do you know how many...
	Vote centers you were able to inspect ballots from?
	I was allowed to inspect from six vote centers.
	Were you able to execute on your plan after you went into M-Tech to select ballots?
	There were some modifications to the plans because the election day ballot data, the cast vote records, which would be referred to as a system of record, Because it has to be maintained in its integrity.
	What was no longer valid due to the recounts.
	When you say it was no longer valid, what do you mean?
	The ballots had been, they had been retabulated for the recounts.
	Thus, Maricopa County was unable to map those back.
	And were some of the ballots that you inspected duplicated ballots?
	Yes, sir, they were.
	And what are duplicated ballots?
	Duplicated ballots are when there's an issue with the ballot and it cannot be ran through the tabulation system.
	Therefore, it is duplicated and then that duplication is run through the system.
	And is that duplication then the ballot that is actually tabulated and counted?
	Yes, sir.
	The way the process works is the original ballot has to have the duplication ID attached to it, which Maricopa did.
	Part where they failed in the statute is, according to the standards, that duplication ballot is supposed to be easily relatable to the original ballot.
	They said they could not find the duplicated ballot, which was tabulated.
	So you inspected the original ballot that was duplicated?
	Yes, sir.
	And do I understand correctly that your understanding of Arizona law is that the...
	The duplicate ballot and the original ballot are supposed to be maintained together physically?
	For obvious reasons.
	That's the EAC requirement.
	Yeah, that's the U.S.-United States Election Assistance Commission that they're referencing.
	And the duplicate ballot, which is the ballot that was counted.
	Yes, sir.
	I can explain this.
	You want to make sure that the duplicate ballot is not being double counted and is an accurate reflection of the original ballot.
	It would be because it was physically damaged.
	He goes in and votes for Trudeau.
	He's like, I love Trudeau.
	Trudeau's wonderful.
	And then they come up with a duplicate ballot and says, no, he voted for that crazy populist party up there.
	And they only count one of those two ballots that don't have the ballots tied together.
	How long did you take to conduct your inspection?
	That's a serious problem.
	What a crock.
	We were there all day.
	Except for a 45-minute lunch break.
	It took the morning because of not being able to track the selected ballots that I wanted to look at.
	We've worked together and found the samplings, and that took all morning to get that sorted out.
	And did you take notes contemporaneously with your inspection?
	Yes, sir.
	Approximately how many ballots did you inspect?
	There were 348 that were set aside.
	And then there were approximately 25 because we did not finish because of the time restraint.
	And out of that 348 that were set aside, how many were ballots printed from a ballot-on-demand printer?
	Oh, for those in the chat, if you want no commentary...
	Go to the right-side broadcasting network.
	We're doing this to comment on it, not to just sit here and watch.
	The spoiled ballots that can be examined, I requested that the spoiled ballots be from those same vote centers.
	This allows me a more accurate response to be able to look at a spoiled ballot and see it's just the same ballot ID and the same actual ballot style as another ballot within that same voting center.
	The one thing that I have to point out is, out of all the spoiled ballots, And the duplicated original ballots, there were a total of 113 ballots examined.
	48 of those existed because there was a 19-inch image of a ballot printed on 20-inch paper.
	There you go.
	Move to strike as non-responsive.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, no way, ma 'am.
	Well, I don't even understand the point of some of these things.
	Oh, I don't know that it was non-responsive.
	Because it's not a jury trial.
	It's a bench trial.
	So, Mr. Parikh, it's your testimony upon inspection of these ballots that you determined that there was a 19-inch ballot image projected onto the 20-inch paper.
	Is that accurate?
	Yes, that is accurate.
	That's one of the initial things.
	When I initially were reviewing evidence that was presented in the public, I saw that the ballots, to me, was easily identifiable.
	Oh, it could be Texas, too.
	Somewhere south that makes it difficult.
	Is this something that, going into this inspection, you had seen evidence of?
	Yes, sir.
	And what evidence was that?
	That was a photograph of a spoiled ballot right next to the reprinted ballot from a vote center.
	It's included in my declaration.
	When you say that's included, do you mean the photographs?
	Yes, sir.
	And so when you were inspecting the ballots yesterday and you determined that the duplicated ballots and the spoiled ballots, I'll strike that.
	How many duplicated ballots did you inspect?
	Fifteen total.
	Of 140.
	And out of that, and duplicated again means that the ballot was rejected by the tabulator?
	For some reason?
	Yes, sir.
	could not be tabulated either icp2s which are at the vote center or the icc at mtech How many of those contained a 19-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper?
	14. 14. What about the other remaining?
	It was physically defective.
	And when you say physically?
	Slotly torn.
	Can you explain to the court how a 19-inch ballot image will strike that?
	How did you determine that it was a 19-inch ballot image projected onto 20-inch paper?
	That was a good accent.
	Because these ballot images are a PDF file.
	Which gets stored along with configuration settings.
	That's what makes up the ballot style and the ballot definition, which is created usually on that EMS, which the actual application that does the ballot style is called EED, right?
	That's the application that actually does the ballot style.
	It's usually installed on the EMS server.
	That application creates that style, the definition, because it needs those things because it gets loaded on the tabulator.
	That's how it's evaluated when the image is created.
	And that's the print job, to use a common term, that gets sent to the printer.
	And how could, and how did you determine that it was actually a 19-inch image projected onto a 20-inch paper?
	I can determine that 100%.
	All the ballots are rejected because the mechanics of a printer, the feeds are not always accurate.
	On the 20-inch ballots, you can see the same, I refer to them as tick marks, but they're actually the borders of the image that is sent.
	And on the 20-inch ballots, you'll see about the very corner above the borders where there's any misfeed.
	On the 19-inch ballots, they were well viewable in the margins.
	There are 90-degree right angles at each corner of the page and the image.
	Did you physically measure the ballots to determine that?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	I requested a ruler, and Maricopa graciously got me one, and they got one of the other inspectors a ruler.
	Well, that'll do it.
	I had to know it was 19 inches.
	It said 19 inches on a ruler.
	How could a 19-inch ballot image appear?
	Well, strike that.
	You've heard previous testimony.
	Were you here for Mr. Jarrett's testimony?
	Yes, sir, I was.
	And did you hear Mr. Jarrett testify that in the November 2022 general election, a 20-inch ballot was used?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	And did you hear Mr. Jarrett testify that it would be a failure of the system if a 19-inch ballot image was projected onto a 20-inch paper?
	Projection, Your Honor, that mistakes the testimony of the prior witness as to the word failure.
	I'm assuming you're going to follow up with a question for an opinion.
	I think you can frame it as a hypothetical without arguing about the process.
	Go ahead, rephrase.
	The witness did not call it a failure.
	I think he said maybe issues or it shouldn't have happened.
	In an election, which is purportedly designed to take place with a 20-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper.
	How could a 19-inch ballot image appear?
	Objection called for speculation.
	That's what he's there for.
	Let's ask a question first, yes or no, if he can tell.
	Ask him if he can tell, and then the objection, and you can re-ask the question.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Mr. Parikh, given your experience and training, particularly with electronic voting systems, nine years, Can you tell what the cause of a 19 inch ballot image being projected on 20 inch paper would be?
	Yes, I can.
	I could give you both the technical ways that it could happen.
	There are only two ways that it can happen.
	Go on.
	Can you tell the court the two ways that that can happen?
	One way is by changing the printer adjustments.
	That would make the printer adjustments and settings override the image file that was set.
	The other is from the application side or the operating system side.
	This is the same for anybody who ever prints anything at home.
	Your Microsoft Word can send the settings or it can say to use the default settings of the printers.
	The application doing it, in this case, as it's a ballot, would have to be that There was a 19-inch image valid definition.
	And where does that definition reside?
	That can vary depending on the system.
	But from what I heard in the testimony, it resides on the laptop that's connected to the printer, which I've seen it referred to as a control printer, but this is actually what would be called a print spooler.
	And it controls the print jobs to allow the printer to take on the load.
	And as there were multiple sidebooks, this would be the technical use that that laptop should be used for.
	Is there any way, in your opinion, for a 19-inch ballot image to be projected on a 20-inch ballot by accident?
	No, sir.
	Why not?
	Because the settings and the configurations and the procedures that are used cannot allow that.
	These are not...
	A bump up against the printer and the settings change.
	There are security configurations.
	I've reviewed the evidence and the printers are configured via script, which by any large organization that has to do multiple systems is a standard.
	This takes away the human error of somebody miscoding in the instructions either on the printer.
	He has no doubts that somebody prior to an election or just incompetence, put in 19 instead of 20 inches.
	But he's saying that either way had to be intentional.
	Prior to an election, would it be detectable?
	But why would someone do that other than to create a problem?
	That a 19-inch ballot image had been projected onto 20-inch paper.
	Yes, if logic and accuracy tested that all voting styles are...
	Our ballot definitions were included.
	This is why I don't like machines.
	A standard logic and accuracy testing should test every style that's available.
	And there should be a listing of set styles.
	Is it...
	You performed testing for EAC certification, correct?
	Yes, sir, I have.
	I agree with the local chat.
	Is it permissible to have two different ballot definitions in the same election?
	With respect to the size of the ballot image?
	No, sir.
	Oh, Laura Barris is in the chat.
	For example, if you live in an apartment building and you have the same school board district, you have the same precinct, all the jurisdictions for whether it's local, county, state, or federal are basically the same.
	That ballot style definition, the ID for it, should be singular.
	If you do not, then you have two different styles.
	You're assessing them differently.
	That can also produce forgery.
	There's only supposed to be one ballot style per those voting options, and that's what controls it.
	The 19-inch ballot image that you observed in your inspection on multiple ballots, including duplicated and spoiled ballots, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Would a 19-inch ballot image projected on a 20-inch piece of paper used in the election in Maricopa for November 2022 have when it was placed into one of these vote center tabulators?
	It would cause it to be rejected.
	According to Dominion's documentation, they performed somewhere between 200 and 300 checks on the actual physical paper ballot that gets inserted into the system.
	They state, and this is according to Dominion, the vendor who created the application, that it can reject the ballot for any one of those.
	A 19-inch image being on 20-inch paper increases the margin.
	Once the timing marks are seen and they're evaluated, the actual physical printer, That created the image.
	By the applications on it, you're done, but there's a remaining inch of paper in there, so it would assume there's a paper jam.
	And to the tech, I specifically asked, there were paper jams to where he opened up and there was no paper.
	So from a programming perspective, the machine would throw the paper jam error, but yet there would be no paper.
	And you're referring to a tech.
	You say you spoke to a tech.
	Would that be Aaron Smith?
	Man, they come up with creative ways to steal.
	Always election fornicating.
	What did Mr. Smith tell you?
	First of all, who is Aaron Smith fornicating on elections?
	What is your understanding of Mr. Smith's role during the November 2022 election?
	I think he repeatedly followed all the procedures that he was instructed to follow.
	He put a good, solid effort forward to resolve the issues.
	It finally became to where the issue could not be resolved according to the procedures, and he actually had to request a replacement tabulator, which so happened to be misconfigured.
	Do you know why Aaron wanted to testify today?
	That is an objectionable question.
	That is speculation.
	Withdraw the question, Your Honor.
	I'm going to screen grab this and remind me about this later.
	Do you remember?
	You mentioned that there are only two possibilities for how a 19-inch image could be configured onto the system to be put on a 20-inch piece of paper, correct?
	Yes.
	My assessment applies to anything that is printed.
	Not just the specifics of this, but to anything that's brilliant.
	These are the way the technology follows.
	It was John Holmes.
	You testified that there's only two ways that this commission could arise.
	What would it take for you to determine which of the two possibilities?
	I think the lawyer is doing a solid job.
	Yeah, the lawyer is very methodical.
	As I did yesterday, inspecting the ballots.
	There were some ballots that were spotty.
	The spottyness was also on batches.
	In a totally complex area, you don't instinctively know.
	That confused me.
	And the stuff that was mentioned about the fusers and the heating, because two...
	They first said it was a toner issue.
	When it's not, it's a tray weight issue, which affects the heated diffusers.
	The mechanical function of a fuser and heater, from what I observed from the spottiness, did not match what is a standard error or example that would be demonstrated.
	There were one or two occasions that were exactly that way, but that was about two ballots out of all that I examined.
	But if you were to try to determine whether it was a printer issue, Configuration issue.
	Or an issue with the ballot definition with respect to how a 19-inch image was projected onto 20-inch paper.
	What would you need to do?
	I would need to see the ballot styles and the ballot definitions.
	In totality, if there's 15,000 of them, all of them should be examined.
	It went from hanging chads to 19-inch borders.
	Obviously, you've been practicing in the cyber field for two decades, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	It includes everything, to include printers.
	That's what I was going to ask you.
	Do you work with printers?
	Do you understand how printers function and work?
	And at what level is your experience?
	To a detailed level.
	To where I actually called one of the government agencies in the missile defense side to get highly upset because I understand the protocols that run.
	And it's not just printers.
	There are multifunctional devices, MFDs as we refer to them, because they can scan, they can print, they can send file transfers.
	And I've evaluated protocols.
	I've also done root cause analysis because classified printers have They could print classified data even when they're not supposed to because of the rollers.
	And this is one thing I refer to it as ghost printing.
	I did see that repeatedly on the early vote ballots that were printed by Runtek because, in my opinion, the ink was a little bit too deep and too shiny for that.
	And I did.
	I was able to even see candidates' names in white space.
	It's very light and gray, but that's why I refer to it as ghost printing.
	Nice phrase, ghost printing.
	Thank you.
	What would you recommend be done with the ballots currently stored at M-Tech now, given your findings from the inspection?
	Objection to relevance?
	Lack of foundation?
	Speculation?
	I wish I had a clicky pick.
	I'm not sure myself.
	You need to rephrase the question.
	I'm going to sustain it.
	Do you have any concerns regarding the security of the ballots given your findings from your inspection yesterday that a 19-inch image Was projected onto the samples from six different boat centers that you examined of 20-inch paper?
	Yes, I can.
	And if it is okay with the court, I have to answer this in two ways.
	They both are pertinent.
	But first, I observed ballots were being pulled out and sampled, and they obliged it in every direction, whether top-middle or that.
	They were provided.
	I observed more improperly imaged ballots that were not inspected that were there.
	Now, to answer the question, those should be secured.
	I will state in my capacity, I handle everything from physical security to accrediting buildings for classified information storage.
	I've been a classified courier, which means I'm authorized to transport classified information.
	As a forensic investigator, I fully understand chain of custody, and what I will cite is that the facility and the security and chain of custody at the vault and the tabulation center are highly inaccurate, and those ballots could be tampered with.
	They should be sealed.
	For example, security seals were only placed on the boxes that we inspected, and that was due to the court order, and they wanted to ensure that the proper security was done.
	Objection, Honor.
	I'm going to move to strike as non-responsive.
	I'm not sure, again, what question that was answering.
	That was non-responsive to the questions beyond the scope of what's before the court.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Strike the last part of his answer, dealing with the security measures.
	Your Honor, just a point of clarification.
	You said strike the last part.
	His answer, he had two parts to his answer.
	He said first, he observed ballots improperly, imaged ballots beyond what was sampled.
	That was part one.
	Part two is the commentary about the continued or ongoing storage.
	And the, sorry, I've been accused of being soft-spoken.
	Part two was the testimony that related to the ongoing security concerns.
	That's the part that is not relevant to the issues that are before the court.
	The judge is repeating the part that's not relevant, so strike that from your mind, Judge.
	You mentioned that you saw other ballots that you could see, do I understand that correctly, had a 19-inch ballot image projected onto 20-inch paper?
	Yes, sir.
	And how could you tell that?
	Because the difference in the margin, let's say we're being taken out of the box and placed on the table and shuffled around, it obviously was apparent to me.
	On these ballots with a 19-inch image, are there marks that kind of...
	That are different around the corners than the 20-inch balance?
	You will see the corner edges of the image, which would be considered, you know, the actual size of the paper.
	Those right angle marks at each, the top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right.
	That's the court trying, because the court dismissed a bunch of claims trying to exclude anything that would actually evidentially substantiate those claims.
	You mentioned you kept notes.
	In my view, improperly.
	Did you draft a report that summarized those notes with conclusions?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	If the court were to ask you for it, would you be able to provide it to the court?
	Yes, sir, I would.
	And would that report be, would you swear to the accuracy of your conclusions in that report?
	Yes, I would.
	And would you swear to the accuracy?
	of the results of your inspection in that report.
	Yes, sir, I would.
	It's not a question of the question not being asked properly.
	They're not allowed talking about that because that was part of a claim that was struck, correct, I think?
	Correct, yep.
	But I disagree with the court's interpretation there because the issue of ballot security goes to the issues he's talking about independently of its evidentiary value for a claim that's been dismissed.
	So that's how I would have countered that.
	For folks out there, basically he said, how could there be election fornication on the ballot printing?
	There was no chastity.
	Passed in six different vote centers.
	Yes.
	Duplicated ballots, spoiled ballots.
	That could only arise from...
	Could it be by accident or...
	No, sir.
	It could not be by accident.
	Those are configuration changes that are administrative level on the printer or with a ballot and style or ballot definition file.
	And those are done on the EMS system.
	Which has password security and everything else.
	The EED application is actually the one that creates the ballot style.
	That's what's used.
	It's commonly put on the EMS server because that's like the centerpiece.
	That's a clip.
	Those two systems are controlled access.
	I'm clipping that right now.
	You testified earlier that you have been involved in other assessments of failures relating related issues, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And we call that a root cause analysis, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	I was part of the working group that established what's called the IRA process, which is a risk analysis and assessment process for the Missile Defense Agency years ago.
	It's a standard risk analysis and assessment.
	And in order to do that, that's the basis for Of how you analyze threat, and then you also, that's why you conduct root cause analysis, because you have to be specific when you assess risk.
	In the performance, in your experience, and you testified earlier that the federal government, was it the federal government that had actually criminally prosecuted people based on your findings in a root cause analysis?
	Yes, sir.
	Sometimes they ignored my analysis, but that's beyond.
	I promise not to mention it.
	Given your opinion and your knowledge of how valid definitions are configured and how printers work, does the
	Does your finding of a 19-inch ballot image placed on 20-inch paper, does that implicate violations of criminal law?
	Objection.
	He's not a lawyer.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Calls for speculation, lack of foundation, and calls for a legal conclusion.
	Does call for a legal conclusion.
	Your Honor, the witness has testified.
	I heard.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I'll sit down.
	What just happened?
	Based on what you have determined on your physical examination of these ballots, your experience both in the industry as a Certified Forensic Hacking Investigator, your CISSP, your skills with, I believe you called it IRAP.
	It's IRA.
	That's the acronym that does it.
	There are different, and this is specifically for technical risk and assessment.
	This is one of the issues when I work for the Voting System Test Labs to get all the vendors.
	I've dealt with over seven of them to my memory.
	None of them performed it.
	The labs didn't perform it.
	I eventually convinced one lab to do this because this is vital to when you're doing system testing, let alone security system testing.
	And this applies not just to electronic motor systems.
	This is to all information systems, all technology.
	These are standard engineering principles.
	Is there any way you could be wrong about a 19-inch image being placed on 20-inch paper?
	No, sir.
	I give the technical options that are there.
	There are two ways that this can happen.
	And based on this system and the controls in place, this could not have been an accident.
	And there are only two options.
	It would take further investigation, further forensic examination for me to determine exactly which one it was.
	Thank you, Mr. Curry.
	All right.
	It would have been nice to see a visual of this.
	They're going to get at him as to how he was able to determine the 19 inches based on a visual.
	How did he determine?
	They're going to have to get that.
	He's looking at PDFs.
	It's an estimate.
	He's not dealing with original documents, but he must have been.
	Somebody screwed around with the other one after lunch.
	Digital items.
	Thank you, Ron.
	I appreciate that.
	Some of these allegations go directly to the conduct of the election by my client, Maricopa County.
	Mr. Parikh, is that the correct pronunciation?
	Yes, sir, it is, sir.
	And where do you reside, Mr. Parikh?
	I reside in Huntsville, Alabama.
	Alabama!
	You traveled up to Maricopa County for this proceeding?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	Our chat guest, Alabama.
	And who paid for your travel?
	Who paid for your travel?
	The attorney fund.
	The attorney fund?
	What's the attorney fund?
	It's the legal fund.
	I believe it's for all the attorneys associated with this.
	With this particular litigation?
	Yes.
	And did the attorney fund pay for lodging as well?
	I think for your lodging.
	Where'd you stay?
	Where'd you stay?
	I bet you this guy did not.
	And are you being paid for your time?
	Yes, I am.
	Yes.
	And what is the rate at which you're being paid for your time?
	$500 an hour.
	$250 an hour.
	That's also coming from the attorney fund?
	Yes.
	Are you familiar with an event called Michael Lindell's Moment of Truth?
	Yes.
	I spoke at the event.
	You appeared and spoke at the event?
	Yes, I did.
	And where was that event held?
	In Missouri.
	Missouri.
	And was your travel from Alabama to Missouri?
	Paid for by someone other than yourself?
	Yes, sir.
	And who paid for that?
	I would assume it would be Mike Lindell.
	All their travel was arranged.
	He asked me to speak at the event and I spoke.
	And that would be true for your time?
	Did you also get paid for your time there?
	I did not charge for my time.
	And your lodging?
	That's considered travel that was provided to me.
	They're trying to show bias.
	And when you say Mr. Lindell, you've heard of him.
	This is every expert witness.
	Your costs are paid for.
	Your time is paid for.
	It's better that he's paid and not doing it for free.
	At least that shows he's a businessman and not a partisan.
	You are a cyber security professional?
	Well, I think you just proved that.
	During your investigation of this election, did you detect any hacking involved in the...
	22 general election in Maricopa County?
	No, sir.
	That bolsters his credibility, not weakens it.
	There's a bunch of stuff I didn't see as a problem.
	It's only this that I saw as a problem.
	I believe you testified that yesterday you were down at McTech forming the court-ordered inspection of the ballots.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, sir, I was.
	And you were asked to select batches of ballots?
	Yes.
	You were asked to identify them?
	Yeah, no jury.
	Use a highlighter and highlight the boxes?
	Yes, I did.
	Did you observe the custodian of those ballots opening those boxes?
	Yes.
	They opened them in front of all the inspectors.
	There was a court reporter inspected.
	There was the other inspector for the other side, the gentleman sitting over there who said he was an attorney.
	We all were there as they went through it.
	Did the individual who opened the box break the seal?
	We can call this broken seal as well.
	That's another.
	Seal, are you referring to the red tape, which is simply red tape and not a security seal?
	Well, I'm asking you, in your professional opinion, the ballots were not sealed.
	The ballots did not have an appropriate security seal on the boxes.
	Why is he opening up something that he got struck earlier?
	In your professional opinion, the ballots were not sealed.
	The ballots did not have an appropriate security seal on the boxes.
	Okay, fine.
	My question was, were the ballots sealed?
	Yeah, there was scotch tape.
	They were closed with tape.
	And where were they stored?
	In the vault and in the tabulation center.
	This guy's your typical government cross-examiner.
	Thinks he has a bunch and really doesn't.
	Would you say that your profession details are important?
	Yes, they're highly important.
	And you said that you reviewed the statutes prior to initiating this investigation?
	He's not a lawyer.
	I always have to do that because it's relevant, especially if a state states a statute.
	So that's a yes?
	Yes.
	And you also reviewed federal statutes?
	Yes.
	Ava, I think you said?
	I'll go as far as back as the 1990 FEC standards.
	I've reviewed them all, every version of the BVSG.
	And you downloaded Title 16?
	Yes.
	I like to have references for when they're referred to because they've been referred to in the Secretary of State's manual.
	They were referred to in the COPA manuals and procedures.
	So I like to actually read what's referred to to ensure that it's accurate.
	And when you read those documents, you pay close attention to detail because that's required by your profession.
	No, I do it on the toilet.
	I'm not a legal attorney.
	And so I read the laws for what they state.
	Because that's required by your profession.
	Is that correct?
	I'm not a legal attorney.
	And so I read the laws for what they state and how they are.
	And you testified that you reviewed some documents that were provided late campaign by a FOIA request.
	Is that accurate?
	I don't believe you ever testified to that.
	Well, it's cross-exam, so he can answer the question if he understands it.
	If you don't understand the question, Mr. Perry, you can have it.
	No, these were public record requests that came from me from other technical professionals.
	So they were not FOIA requests?
	Those records were obtained via FOIA requests.
	Are you familiar with FOIA?
	Can you tell me what FOIA stands for?
	It's the Freedom of Information Act.
	And is that a statute of federal standards?
	So a FOIA can be either a state or a federal, in your understanding.
	Yeah, I mean, it's just called open records or public records request in other states.
	This is a dumb point by a dumb lawyer.
	If the state was a public records request under the Arizona statute, that would be a detail that doesn't interest you?
	You've got to be kidding me.
	Oh, you didn't understand that the word FOIA only applies to the federal law, whereas the FOIA analog that everybody calls FOIA in the state isn't the same.
	This is a detail, isn't it, Mr?
	Come on, just sit down and shut up.
	You're a loser.
	When I'm provided evidence, I always ask the source of it.
	And I have received, in my experience, I have received evidence from law enforcement officials that, in my opinion, were not properly attained.
	And as a forensic investigator who understands chain of custody and all the legal ramifications, because for the court's record, the majority of that deals with the statutes.
	For example.
	The lockpicks that I own is part of my security thing.
	In my state, I have to have a private investigator license.
	These are the statutes that a forensic investigator handling evidence has to be aware of.
	Thank you.
	And when you're working with your security thing, as you said it, are you familiar with federal statutes and state statutes?
	The audio's off.
	Yeah, there's a lag.
	Not sure about the question.
	The video's a little bit ahead of the audio.
	Thank you.
	Next question.
	You've just testified that you receive information from law enforcement that's both federal and state law enforcement.
	Is that correct?
	I didn't say that.
	I said it was law enforcement.
	And you testified both federal law enforcement and state law enforcement.
	Is that correct?
	What I just told you is I said I received it from law enforcement.
	Well, when you receive information in your profession from law enforcement, are you familiar whether the law enforcement's federal or state?
	Oh, jeez, Luis.
	Yes, when they provide me the evidence, yes.
	Is that a detail that's important to you?
	Yes.
	This is a thing.
	This guy thought this was a brilliant cross-examination.
	I'm going to have a thematic unity.
	Is that a detail?
	What about F versus A or G versus E?
	This is not consequential to his testimony.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	And you testified?
	That you examined and you testified that the duplicates were not kept next to the duplicates.
	It would take them over a week to try to find them.
	That's your recollection of what Mr. Jarrett said?
	That is what Mr. Jarrett said.
	And if the ballots, the originals and the duplicates were in the boxes right next to each other, would that surprise you?
	The duplicates that I was shown, because they were duplicated, were part of one of the vote centers.
	And he opened both those boxes.
	And two, because they couldn't identify some of the original duplicates, they had to run and count them so they could try to map them back.
	So what Mr. Jarrett said when you asked to see the originals of the duplicates?
	No, sir.
	That's a detail that's important.
	You're telling this court that when you asked Mr. Jarrett to view the duplicates of the originals that he told you it would take six hours.
	To clarify, I did not ask to see duplicates.
	They were part of the vote center, and they provided the entirety of what they have for the vote center.
	They could not provide what was written.
	Thank you, Mr. Currier.
	I think the important thing to ask you to make sure that I understand it correctly is that you did not ask to see the duplicates.
	They were supposed to be kept together.
	I think the United States' prior testimony, argumentative.
	Sustained.
	This is Cross.
	Just for reference, and I'll cross, if he doesn't understand the question, he can have it rephrased.
	Particularly with an expert witness, I think he's capable of answering.
	If you don't understand, you can have him rephrase it.
	If you do understand, you can go ahead and answer.
	Would you like the question restated to you?
	Yes, please.
	Yes, sir.
	Please, Mr. Lenny.
	Mr. Parrick, is it your recollection that when you asked Mr. Jarrett to see the duplicates and the originals, That he told you it would take six hours to get them?
	One, I did not ask to see them.
	They were provided.
	Thank you, Mr. Perrick.
	That answered my question.
	You did not ask to see them.
	Elaborate, because they weren't kept together as they should have been.
	Yeah, he can do that in a redirect.
	Your Honor, if I may.
	I like this guy.
	Your counsel have redirect.
	All right, there you go.
	Yes, sir.
	All he's interested in is the truth.
	I just want to state that we were following.
	I have another question, Your Honor.
	It's appropriate.
	You've testified that you have a working theory that some of the ballots for the 2022 general election run 20-inch paper but were printed at 19 inches.
	Is that correct?
	A 19-inch image printed on 20-inch paper.
	Correct.
	It is not a theory.
	Okay, so it was 20-inch paper.
	That's right.
	The ballot was 20 inches, correct?
	The paper was 20 inches.
	By what?
	The image was 19 inches, according to your testimony, correct?
	The ballot image was 19 inches, yes.
	Are you familiar with a shrink-to-fit setting on a printer?
	Yes, I am.
	Oh, they're going to say it's an accident.
	A shrink-to-fit setting account.
	For some of the ballots you observed being 19 inches on 20-inch paper?
	That is a possibility, but it would violate the configuration settings they had for the voting systems and the tabular.
	And you've testified that you're familiar with the election process?
	Yes, sir.
	Testified that if one were to take a 20-inch ballot that's shrunk to 19 inches and put it into a vote center.
	Precinct tabulator, it would not get tabulated.
	Yes.
	It would not get tabulated at any tabulator.
	Any tabulator.
	That includes ICP or the ICCs at Central.
	Okay, so if it went down to Central, according to your understanding, and it was tried to run through the tower tabulators, it would also not be tabulated.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	And you've just testified that you observed some duplicated ballots.
	Is it your understanding that a ballot that cannot be tabulated by a precinct-based tabulator and cannot be tabulated by a tower-configured tabulator at Central would then be duplicated?
	It would have to be because it couldn't be tabulated, so it would require duplication.
	And after duplication, what would happen to that ballot?
	The duplicated ballot, which is supposed to be marked with a specific ID, and that ID must be recorded on the original, and I saw those stickers.
	On the originals.
	Questions, what would happen to that ballot?
	Then the ballot would be rerun through the tabulator.
	So it would be tabulated.
	Is that your testimony?
	The duplicated ballot would be tabulated.
	Yes, it should be.
	Okay, so if a voter walked into a vote center on election day, filled out a ballot, maybe had a shrink-to-fit setting on it, so it wouldn't be counted on the tabletop.
	We go into door number three, goes on down to McTech, they put it into the tower tabulator, and it doesn't get counted, and then it gets duplicated, and then it gets counted, so that voter's ballot was voted and tabulated.
	Is that your understanding?
	Is that your understanding?
	Your Honor, I can't ask her that question the way he asked the question because it's inaccurate.
	Let's hear it.
	I'm sorry.
	You don't understand.
	You can say, I don't understand, and he can rephrase it so you can understand.
	But if you don't like the way it's phrased, that's something that your counsel will have to clear up.
	Yes, sir.
	I like the judge.
	The judge is doing good.
	I'm going to address the court.
	I'm provided for technical expertise to get those options.
	And if the technical scenario is inaccurate, I cannot answer the question.
	Let me try again.
	Try again.
	Let's make it six different components.
	Right here in this room.
	Bonafide candidate for governor of the Grand Canyon State.
	Hundreds of thousands of voters would love to have had her as the next governor.
	One of them chooses not to vote in the 26 days of early voting or mail-in voting or emergency vote center voting.
	Is this a question?
	It chooses to show up on election day.
	This is not a question.
	Gets a ballot from a ballot-on-demand printer.
	And somebody, either intentionally or inadvertently, has hit the shrink-to-fit setting.
	Oh, it's shrink-to-fit.
	And this 20-inch ballot paper comes out 19 inches.
	It will not get read.
	This voter fills it out.
	Cary Lake.
	He's still getting that wrong.
	I think it must be 19 inches on a 20-inch.
	Into the precinct tabulator.
	It comes out.
	Goes into door number three.
	Goes down to McTac.
	The much more sensitive tabulators, according to you, it would not count it.
	It would then go to duplication.
	It would be duplicated.
	Then it would be tabulated.
	Is that your understanding of the elections in Maricopa County?
	Dude, say that five times in a row.
	Your technical description is not possible.
	Oh!
	I apologize.
	I wasn't attempting to give a technical description.
	You just did.
	I was just saying what happened.
	Based on your testimony.
	He's trying to claim that duplication solves this problem.
	That voter who wanted to vote for Carrie Lake would never have that vote tabulated.
	Is that your testimony?
	My testimony is that a shrink-to-fit setting would rely at the application level, which would reside on the EMS.
	Which Mr. Garrett just testified sends the print job to the printer.
	Therefore, it can't be accidental as all the employees that man the EMS are trained.
	Whether it's accidental or inadvertent.
	I gave the two options.
	Please allow me to ask the question.
	I understand what he's saying now.
	Whether it's accidental or inadvertent, if the shrink-to-fit 19-inch ballot has to be duplicated, once it's duplicated, Would it be tabulated?
	To your understanding?
	Maybe.
	There are two technical ways that that image would be there.
	None of the ways you exist, it's not even possible.
	Would it get counted at the end of the day is the question.
	Down the line manually.
	That's not responsive to his question.
	If you are able to answer his question.
	Sir, are you able to answer the question?
	His answer should be, I don't know.
	And that's a problem.
	I'm unable to answer your question.
	Okay.
	Let me ask a different question.
	And that's a problem.
	Who knows if it gets counted?
	A duplicated ballot tabulated.
	I mean, they can present evidence that all of these ballots were counted.
	If they're duplicated correctly and they're configured correctly, yes, they should be.
	Thank you.
	No further questions, Your Honor.
	So if it gets rejected, and it gets duplicated, and it gets put into the third box, and they say, don't worry, down the line, we'll count it.
	We need to break.
	We're going to take a one hour, not one and a half hour recess.
	So we'll be back here at one o 'clock to resume.
	Oh, jeez.
	So...
	Yeah.
	You what?
	Good.
	Okay, get out of here.
	Just come back at one o 'clock, Mr. Freak, and we'll resume where we left off.
	Yes, sir.
	And I will realize I'm still under oath, sir.
	You read my mind.
	I like this guy.
	Thank you very much.
	You're welcome.
	Kids hear the crap out of me.
	So what's your thoughts on watching so far, baby?
	Well, two things.
	We're going to have to find another feed by the time this comes back around after lunch, but some of the other feeds will do.
	I'm going to close it.
	Okay, so let's see here.
	The witness, this expert, was trying a little too hard.
	Hold on, Robert.
	I can't.
	I'm too used to this.
	He was trying a little too hard to say it couldn't be done accidentally.
	Shrink to fit.
	So they're going to say it was an accident.
	Hold on.
	It was a goof.
	When we hit printer, we hit shrink to fit instead of printer.
	The problem is it works in reverse.
	They went from 19 to 20. That's not shrink to fit.
	The allegations that the error went from 20 to 19. I thought it was the other way around.
	I thought it was 19-inch image printed on 20. 20 inches.
	Yes, but they're going to say it was a 20-inch image.
	That's going to shrink to fit.
	No, no.
	I think it could.
	Unless it's expand to fit.
	No, but if it's supposed to fit the entire page because you say fit to whole page.
	That's going from big to small, not small to big.
	But that's what he's saying.
	He's saying someone hit shrink to fit.
	It's because he kept getting wrong the 20 to 90. My understanding from what he testified is they put a 19-inch image on a 20-inch paper.
	True.
	Well, no, I think that...
	The lawyer keeps saying the opposite.
	He's saying they put a 20-inch image on a 19-inch paper.
	Let me see what the chat has to say.
	That's the only shrink-to-fit works.
	Well, no, because the idea that if you printed it fit-to-page...
	Well, fit-to-page is different.
	Yeah, well, that's the thing.
	He's not claiming fit to page.
	He's claiming shrink to fit.
	Exactly, because if he did fit to page, it would go to the edge of the border of the page.
	It would be a 20-inch on 20-inch.
	But then it's still deliberate.
	How did you screw up the page?
	Well, then the question is going to be, why did it only happen to some ballots?
	Do they hit shrink to fit or fit to page?
	Do they do this manually?
	I found this cross-examination.
	I thought he was...
	I thought the better point he had was to argue that all these ballots...
	That this was an inconsequential error because all the ballots...
	We're fixed by duplicate ballots.
	That, I thought, was the better state argument than saying this couldn't be intentional and could somehow be accidental.
	I don't think they have a good explanation on that.
	Here, let's see.
	Shrink to fit means, let's just, Ryan Boudreaux needs, you have to have 21 needing to go on 20. On a ballot, it should be 20 to 20 perfect fit.
	Unless, for whatever the reason, it...
	Shrink to fit reduces the image so there's a border for whatever the reason.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm hearing an echo.
	The point is that requires systemic change.
	In other words, that has to be someone with a high ranking has to go in and do that because they obviously anticipate these things.
	And so they set in the protocols in advance.
	And that's why he's like, somebody at the level of controlling the protocols had to deliberately put that in.
	It doesn't happen accidentally.
	It's not, you know, it...
	Nor would it.
	I mean, something like...
	I mean, Maricopa County's sincere argument is their election system is so bad that they can have shrink-to-fit errors on their computer machines.
	On the day of.
	That is a damning indictment.
	Oh, his cross-examination is as damning of Maricopa County as the allegations against them.
	They're so insecure, so bad, so insufficient.
	Standards are such a joke.
	Their managers are so incompetent that they can't even prevent shrink-to-fit from happening on destroying ballots.
	That's how bad they are.
	If I wasn't asking, I would be telling the judge, this is even more embarrassing.
	This is a disgrace.
	Are you going to greenlight this embarrassment to the rule of law and elections in America?
	Are you going to say this is what is the standard?
	Did this reflect the will of the people or did it reflect the will of the politicians?
	But Robert, it wasn't intentional.
	So at the very least, it wasn't...
	It's even worse!
	It's even worse!
	They're saying their system is so insecure, they can't even prevent shrink-to-fit problems.
	That's how insecure their system is.
	And that too is intentional.
	Because your lack of security...
	It's just as intentional as you doing the theft yourself.
	Let me see here.
	We got this one.
	The image was 19 inches.
	Yes, printed on 20. That's what we get.
	The image should have been 20 inches.
	Shrink to fit would not change the image size just how it was printed.
	We may not get to the bottom of this conceptual murkiness.
	It's a bad excuse by the state.
	No, so like you said.
	It indicts the state either way.
	His better argument would, I would have never talked about that.
	He's doing that for the court of public opinion.
	Also, he's an idiot.
	The lawyer.
	The better argument was a simple one.
	It was the duplicate ballot one.
	And if he would have set that up well, he could have been in a much better position.
	The way to start off was, okay, so it happens, this ballot happens here, okay, and then that happens.
	And do I understand this correctly?
	You're an expert, you reviewed all of this.
	Does the next thing, does the duplicate happen?
	Is there anything that prevents duplication from occurring?
	And if the duplicate happens, then that can be tabulated.
	Because that fixes the error.
	Do I understand that?
	You know, set it up like that.
	But he's so arrogant, so condescending, so midwit, classic midwit, your classic county government lawyer.
	These are people who win all the time in court, and it's like the old George Poppy Bush joke.
	Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
	They win because the court systems are on their side, because of life experience and personal and political prejudice.
	They don't win because they're competent.
	I've met very few lawyers defending cities and counties that have an IQ above lukewarm.
	You're seeing it live here.
	He had a good, decent argument to make.
	It doesn't really rebut this expert, but it rebuts the consequence from an election contest perspective if he's right.
	He could have set that up and he didn't.
	And the expert thought he was like, okay, you're trying to say that what I'm saying can't be true because of duplication, and I'm pointing out, know that what I'm saying is still true independent of duplication.
	So he's going to say, because that might make sense out of what they said.
	By the way, I'm screen grabbing all of the Rumble rants.
	I'm going to get to them in a second.
	But that might have made sense.
	When we watched that video of Richer and Gates, they're saying...
	We're having some problems with the tabulators.
	If it doesn't get read, you slip it into this box, and it's signature verified already, and we count it later.
	So that, in theory, would be their best defense.
	It raises the issue of what that second issue is for people other than this expert.
	They're trying to say, well, just because, even if we assume your expertise is correct, these ballots were still counted because of our duplication process.
	But that's not what he's testifying to.
	He's only testifying to this was intentional at the tabulator process.
	They have other witnesses to attest to whether or not that meant the ballots weren't counted.
	Now, that still goes to suppression issues and other issues of people who left because of the long line, because of how the tabulator issue created that.
	So they don't solve that problem with duplication.
	They only solve the duplication problem.
	The duplication probably only solves part of their evidentiary problem for the county.
	And Francis Sarton, I think he makes a decent point because I think we picked up on this earlier where he says, did you ask to see the duplicates?
	And I thought the proper answer would have been, I shouldn't have to ask.
	They should be stored together.
	You can't store the duplicates apart because then you can count them twice.
	And then the idea, trying to discredit him because he was out of Mike Lindell.
	He's surely never a pro-Trump or MAGA Republican who...
	I think Dominion had servers in Germany if he went to a Mike Lindell event trying to discredit him that way.
	We didn't really have any good argument about intentionality, at least not that cross-examination.
	So it looks like, I mean, I think they've met their burden.
	You never know what, of course, I think the judge is a wuss.
	So I think the chances the judge issues remedy is still low.
	He proved that by applying latches in a preposterous manner.
	So the judge confuses.
	The will of the politicians with the will of the people.
	He's like, oh, I can't overturn an election.
	That's overturning the will of the people.
	The way of an election contest is to figure out what the will of the people actually was.
	You're affirming the will of the politicians when you affirm an election that is against the will of the people because of what took place here.
	But I thought this guy testified competently and effectively.
	They tried to go to an area outside of his expertise.
	Probably could have been prepped a little bit better on that.
	They'll say, here's where they're probably going to go as to why they saw the problem.
	And you can just say, that's outside my expertise, that aspect.
	I can testify as to how this problem occurred and whether the duplicates were present when I was there.
	That's it.
	I don't know what happened elsewhere.
	That's outside my expertise.
	The error couldn't be corrected in a third round duplication is what he's saying.
	But there wouldn't be a third round of duplication.
	I just don't understand how the ballot would get duplicated if it couldn't be read in the first place.
	But at the risk of complicating it too much, the bottom line, the defense in the cross, or I guess it's the cross, is suggesting, well...
	It could have been a shrink to fit.
	That wouldn't be intentional.
	Someone in the chat said, well, it needed a password, supervision, whatever.
	Yeah, it would still have to be intentional.
	Yeah.
	And that's the point he's putting is that they put in all these protocols so that you couldn't use shrink to fit.
	None of those things could happen without somebody going in and changing it at the administrative level.
	So the mere fact that he's talking about shrink to fit.
	Tells me that they know somebody did it intentionally and they don't have an offense.
	Or it's my first day.
	I didn't realize I'm not supposed to hit shrink to fit every time.
	I do that with every picture I print.
	Again, that would mean it.
	And like I said, that's just as damning, right?
	The whole point of election security in the digital space with digital role is that that can't happen without a high-ranking administrative person ordering it to happen.
	That mistakes like that can't happen.
	Because your security protocol is prevented.
	It's like having a lock on the door, right?
	That someone just can't open it up.
	If you don't have a lock on the door, that's a security deficiency.
	That's its own level of intentional bad action.
	It doesn't matter whether you unlock the door yourself so that someone committed a heist or you failed to lock the door.
	Either way, you're as culpable for the hike.
	This is the question, because the judge in the order, which I went over briefly yesterday, he said, at least with respect to the ballot-on-demand issue, the allegation is that it was intentional.
	And in his last paragraph, he says, look, it'll be an issue to be tried on the facts.
	Was it intentional?
	Was it done intentionally for the purposes of affecting the outcome?
	And three, did it actually impact the outcome?
	In law, Robert, and this was my question, intentional, will willful negligence be deemed to be intentional?
	He's wrong on the first part.
	That's not Arizona law.
	Arizona law is inadvertence, mistakes, negligence.
	It doesn't matter how the election was impacted.
	All that matters is that it was.
	So, like, he was conflating two standards.
	There's one standard that says if fraud, intentional misconduct occurred, you have to avoid the election altogether, regardless of whether you can prove consequence.
	The idea is that because it's intentional and fraudulent, you won't be, that if someone did it well, you won't be able to prove how it impacted it.
	So the law says in the election context in Arizona...
	If it's intentional, if it's fraudulent, avoid the election period.
	It then says, if, however, it wasn't intentional, then you have to prove it impacted the election.
	He conflated the two.
	He got the two totally wrong.
	He cites them right at the beginning and then gets them wrong the rest of his argument.
	That's why in the Attorney General's case, his judge isn't requiring intentionality be proven.
	Because that's the proper law.
	He misquoted the law.
	The judge.
	Or misunderstood it.
	Even though it's right there in the beginning of the case, it's very quote.
	But that's the question now.
	Hypothetically, he comes to the ruling that, okay, they shrunk to fit.
	It was intentional, but not intentional to impact the election.
	It was just intentional because they're idiots and didn't know you shouldn't shrink to fit.
	It would be a legal error by him.
	And so then for appeal.
	It might be reversed.
	That might be the kind of thing that could be reversed on appeal.
	I don't have a lot of confidence in the Arizona appellate courts either, or the Arizona Supreme Court.
	I've dealt with...
	Election contest and election issues in particular in Arizona repeatedly.
	It's the number one state I've sued because of their multiple election violations all the time.
	So I sued him for Ralph Nader back in 2004 in a case that lasted six years.
	I sued on behalf of the Green Party and sued on behalf of other people in Arizona.
	So I think on the issue of...
	What the judge's burden is...
	I think they've met it on two of the three parts of their first count.
	This was intentional.
	And two, that this was...
	I mean, what other reason were there to do this other than to impact the election?
	Just because they're idiots.
	We didn't know.
	But once you grant it's intentional, the only purpose...
	In other words, the idea of...
	I mean, the judge has misstated the standard, but let's go with the judge's standard.
	The idea of intentionally to impact the election is to exclude things that are intentional conduct but weren't intended to impact the election.
	Like, you have a plausible alternative purpose.
	What a plausible alternative purpose do they have for this?
	I don't think they have it.
	So then the only question is, number three, did it impact the election sufficient to warrant, to bring in doubt?
	Are there enough ballots that are in doubt?
	And that's their real defense right now by the state.
	You can hear their defense is duplication solved this problem.
	There aren't more than 17,000 ballots that weren't counted.
	Now, it doesn't solve the problem that the tabulator issue created voter suppression.
	It doesn't solve that problem at all.
	And it doesn't solve in terms of voters who left and just didn't vote at all.
	And then otherwise it just goes to the issue of credibility of the state and some other issues as well.
	But so I think that this guy mostly lived up to expectation.
	Could have been a little bit better prepped for cross-examination where they would go.
	But again, this is all being done on rapid timetable turnover.
	This is very hard for election contest lawyers to do.
	They're constantly put under the gun, required to basically try a case in a week that normally you would get a year of discovery and information to develop.
	And here you have an expert, and you're trying to get the expert up there.
	You're trying to prep the expert, trying to get the expert time to review everything.
	And he and the expert were spending all day yesterday doing evidentiary review.
	So, you know, there's only – and then you debrief them.
	Not a lot of time probably to prep them for cross.
	But it's a good example of where you can do so.
	It can help.
	I'm going to bring up a bunch of chats after this, but I want to bring this one up.
	This is from Rumble.
	It says, oh, my God, Viva, they're claiming they had to duplicate them because they weren't being read properly.
	So they made a duplicate.
	But how do we know they didn't change the duplicate?
	That was the point.
	I thought they duplicated – Yeah, that's a problem.
	I mean, I think he's arguing that duplication – But here's the thing.
	I think the expert was kind of confused by the questioning.
	And the expert's point was whether duplication, he wasn't there to testify whether duplication solved the problem.
	He wasn't there for that.
	He was there to show intentionality in creating a tabulator issue in the first place, a printer issue in the first place.
	And I think he thought the cross-examination was saying, your expert testimony about the tabulator issue could not be true.
	Because we could duplicate later.
	That's why you're seeing him confused.
	He's like, no, what you're talking about doesn't fix the problem.
	Because actually, the issue was beyond the scope of the expert's witness's testimony, which would have been the better objection.
	Also, it would have given a heads up to the expert as to where he's going.
	And say, Your Honor, he has testified as to the intentionality.
	of the issue of the tabulator printer problem, which we argue consequentially cause issues with voter suppression and ballot exclusion, but he is not testifying on the issue of voter suppression or ballot exclusion.
	And these questions go to issues beyond his expert witness testimony, and frankly beyond the subject matter of his expertise, and that is not...
	Appropriate cross-examination.
	Even though the court had a very liberal definition of cross for experts.
	My view is his liberal interpretation of that reflected that the judge wanted information to go against the guy.
	I don't think he got it.
	If the judge issues an opinion that says this wasn't intentional and this expert testimony didn't establish it, that's not a credible interpretation by the judge.
	That's the judge's bias showing through, in my opinion.
	Where the better, if I was the state, the better out is clearly arguing that duplication solved the problem.
	That yes, this problem existed, but either in voter suppression or in voter ballot exclusion, it's not 17,000 plus ballots.
	Because it's interesting that, how do they not know this is what caused the problem?
	How do they not publicly disclose this fact?
	Why are we only now finding out this problem existed?
	If they were sincere in wanting to see, hey, how did this screw up occur?
	How do we fix this?
	How do we remedy this?
	We would have already heard about this.
	The fact it's having to come out in a hearing shows that they knew about it and covered it up.
	Doesn't that raise questions about everything else that took place?
	Kind of like my O.J. Simpson argument.
	Once you know the cops planted a bunch of evidence, how do you convict them?
	You say, well, I still think he's probably guilty.
	But how do you trust any evidence?
	When you know those people forged or fraudulently or intentionally did anything wrong.
	And here, independent of what happened here, the fact we haven't heard about it throughout this entire from the county tells us that the county is culpable and complicit because the cover-up is evidence of as much of the crime as anything else.
	Yep.
	Cannot disagree with that.
	Let me bring up some chats.
	We'll get these before we come back.
	Could we get a video of you explaining the difference in types of fish you are fishing in Florida versus Canada?
	Yes.
	I would love to do that.
	It would give me pleasure to have a day where I do something other than, oh, watch the rapid descent of the world into madness.
	Shrink to fit makes a large image smaller.
	Yes, this is an image smaller than the paper.
	Shrink to fit doesn't apply anyway.
	And that's, by the way, the sign of a lazy state to county defense lawyer.
	I mean, these people are not even that good at what they do, right?
	I mean, if I was there to help cover up a corrupt election, I would have come up with a better explanation than that.
	Robert, two questions.
	So the big news yesterday, Mark Elias was taking a victory lap on Twitter.
	Katie Hobbs, not Katie Hobbs, Carrie Lake withdrew the Katie Hobbs subpoena.
	My understanding is that Katie Hobbs was making a motion to quash the subpoena.
	They withdrew the subpoena.
	People are saying it was all for show.
	They knew there was just blah, blah, blah.
	And Carrie Lake, who was at an event, saying we're going to get Katie Hobbs down and grill her.
	It's a victory that they're not doing it.
	My initial reaction was that if they announced they were going to contest the subpoena to quash it, they only have two days of trial.
	They don't want to waste time debating quashing a subpoena when they only have six hours.
	The other explanation is that...
	Given the judgment, which maybe the subpoena might have gone out before the judgment, now Katie Hobbs' testimony is actually irrelevant, not the object of the two remaining claims.
	So they withdrew it.
	Is it a victory?
	Was it a strategic ploy?
	Or did they withdraw it for lack of reason?
	I've seen contradictory, because I thought I saw something that the judge didn't quash it.
	So that's where it was unclear to me whether it actually had been formally withdrawn.
	I saw reports of that, but I didn't see clear proof of that.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, in terms of why, if it was withdrawn, it would be because the court's order said that she's not an election official.
	I mean, it's a statutory interpretation, but Arizona clearly needs to clean up their election contest laws.
	And my view is, don't have the election contest go to the courts.
	Have election contest go to state legislatures.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me text this person here.
	Text mom.
	I'm live.
	Okay.
	Just have to respond to one of my kids.
	Okay.
	So what else?
	So Hobbes is not going to testify.
	So who testified before this guy?
	So we had Richard, or Richer, as I like to say, the guy with the reddish stubbly beard who kind of looks like Prince Harry.
	It looks like the annoying accountant or whatever from the show The Office.
	I think that was another one that people said.
	The guy in the video with Bill Gates.
	Yeah, that's who I think of.
	He looks like the guy in The Office that's like the HR guy or something.
	It's real annoying.
	He reminded me of him.
	Well, I'm going to be embarrassed to say that I've never watched The Office.
	Or I only know Steve Carell and a couple of the other characters.
	He testified.
	On vacation from Panama City, apparently.
	And apparently he hadn't taken vacation in four years.
	Yep.
	In the middle of an election that he helped run, he takes off to Panama?
	Robert, they did not.
	Panama City, Florida, Panama, Panama.
	I think they said Panama.
	I think he said Panama City.
	People in the chat...
	So he takes off to the Gulf Coast in the middle of an election contest.
	What a joke.
	What an embarrassment.
	So he's testifying via Zoom.
	There's a delay and a lag which makes it borderline unwatchable, let alone unquestionable.
	Which is interesting, by the way, because Richard Barris was told he couldn't testify by Zoom.
	So he had to fly all across the country to be there in Arizona.
	So the county and the state's not letting someone like Barris testify by Zoom, but their main witness is because he...
	Suddenly gets inspired to take a vacation in the biggest election contest in recent American history.
	And, Robert, I wish that we had a direct line to the lawyers because that came out in Cross.
	So they call him up as a witness.
	They ask him a question.
	He looks very defensive.
	He reminds me of somebody I know in real life.
	He looks very defensive and almost angry to be there.
	In Cross, they say, where are you now?
	He says, Panama City.
	I'm on vacation.
	Haven't taken one in four years.
	In redirect, they didn't ask him when he booked his ticket.
	It would have been very nice to know, did you book that ticket?
	First of all, you book it three years ago, you cancel it, period.
	You book it after, when you know that you're going to be called to testify, that's suspicious.
	And whether or not he was properly served with a subpoena to testify.
	And then someone else said...
	Hold on one second.
	What does it say?
	Panama City, also Viva Recorder, makes $170,000 per year plus bribes.
	Let's scratch the bribes part.
	170 grand a year is a decent salary.
	All these government people get paid way too much.
	Maybe that's something we should propose.
	A rule that no person in the government makes more than the median income in America.
	Well, I was going to say pay them well so they do their jobs well because there's nothing worse than having a job.
	Unless they're the military.
	Military people deserve better, but that's it.
	170.
	Well, what does the press secretary get?
	She gets 180 a year, I think.
	Absurd.
	I mean, it's the top 1%.
	Top 1% of all income.
	Government employees.
	400, 400.
	Decaying country.
	No, you're taxpayers.
	The taxes that people who are breaking their back to work hard every day go to pay lush salaries for government workers.
	For people who can't even figure out how to prevent shrink-to-fit from the ballots on the computer, according to the government's own defense.
	You know what?
	I need to make sure that I have a proper recording in the background.
	Hold on.
	Let me see.
	We got a great meme in our locals chat.
	I don't know if you can bring it up or not.
	Let me see.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can.
	I already got witness memes.
	People got to come up with a nickname for the tech expert.
	I think I can.
	So let me see if I do this.
	If I go to StreamYard, I'm going to take down, not add to StreamYard.
	I'm going to take this down.
	I'm going to go present.
	I'm going to go tab.
	Tabulator.
	Here we go.
	This one, Robert?
	Yes.
	This is from Locals, people.
	In our Locals live chat, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Your technical description is not possible.
	It would have been better in a Russian accent.
	Fantastic.
	I can bring those up as they come up.
	Those are some of the memes we can show.
	Let's see which ones we can show, Robert.
	Here, I'm going to go back up here.
	Let's see here.
	There's one back a little bit, definitely substantially further probably, but that was pretty good.
	We have the best meme makers.
	You know, Talix, Florida Man, four or five others that make great memes.
	This is the guy.
	That's Richer on the left and Bill Gates.
	Yeah, that's the dude from the office.
	It's the HR guy from the office.
	Well, look who's behind the tabulator.
	I think that's Katie Hobbs.
	Oh, yeah, it's a great meme.
	It's a doctored image, people.
	That is a great meme.
	Katie Hobbs, that's perfect.
	Whoever did that, that is excellent.
	I'm going to take this one out of here, stop screen.
	Now, I'm going to bring up some more of the rants, if I can bring those up from time to time here.
	I figured out a way now.
	It's not in real time.
	I found a way to get the Rumble Rant.
	For those people that wonder why they can only do the Rumble rants online, it's because otherwise 30% would go to Apple and Google.
	So that's why there's not mobile availability.
	That's why you got to do it online.
	So here's one.
	And now the way I'm doing it is I think if I just bring them up here, he said this is Il Sarto.
	I'm not trying to bring up as many as I can, but not all of them.
	He said it cannot be accidental we got this part because it fit the parameters.
	Now, if I click on another one, that one's not coming up.
	So then I have to go back here.
	And then try this again.
	It's a big pain in the neck to try to bring them up because I have to go and share the window for each one.
	Here we go.
	Millie Mouse says, Viva and Barnes commentary is epic.
	Love you guys.
	Thank you very much.
	What time do they come back after lunch?
	He said one hour.
	Well, one hour.
	That was from...
	Oh, he's going to do it.
	So 1 p.m.
	Phoenix time, which is noon my time, which would be 3 p.m. Eastern.
	Robert, this was a big one.
	It says, Richard...
	Robert, they said, he was asked, Richard, were you ever involved in a political action committee that ran against Carrie Lake and other, I think they said MAGA candidates?
	I forget exactly how they said it.
	And he said no, categorically.
	So I don't know when the proper time to raise that apparent Inaccurate answer under oath would be, but it seems that he...
	Well, they can usually...
	Whatever evidence they have for that, they should find a way to present to the court.
	If he lied about that, that's perjury.
	Well, do they do that after he testifies he's off the stand and then they raise it in closing?
	They need the evidence.
	What's the evidentiary foundation?
	Right now, a lawyer's questions aren't evidence, so they don't have any evidence in the record at this point, given his denial.
	So they need to find somebody who can attest to it.
	There also, it depends on how well the question was phrased.
	If they use the words like involve, that's a smart word to use, because that's real broad.
	If they said founder, officer, Member, etc., etc., then he might have some weasel words out.
	We'll see what they have for that evidence.
	Oh, my legs are hurting me.
	Okay, so what else did we have, Robert?
	So we had the Hobbs subpoena being eliminated, or being withdrawn or quashed.
	When I was doing one, Richer was first, probably because he's on vacation or whatever.
	And he was called by Lake's team to basically kind of cross right out of the gate.
	They had someone before...
	Chat, no, who did they have after Risher?
	It was the guy who looked very defensive.
	Oh, you know what we could do?
	Here, let's just go back here and see.
	Was that their tech guy?
	No, no, it was definitely the state, and he was definitely uncomfortable.
	Let me just take this chat there.
	So was he being called as an adverse witness by Carrie Lake's people?
	Definitely a witness-in-chief.
	Here, let's get the second one, just because I don't...
	I've got two things here.
	I'm going to take this out.
	For elections, those are enterprise-level printers where individuals...
	Wow, the guy didn't even wear a tie for this thing.
	Just shows up his t-shirt in his condo.
	Robert, they asked...
	That's how seriously these people take elections.
	It was the first question his lawyer asked in Crosses.
	Oh, you're on vacation and you...
	If you came to court, you would have been dressed in a suit.
	Let's...
	There's judges that...
	Well, I mean, he's a witness, so he doesn't have to, but...
	I mean, what a slap in the face to the court.
	That's what I would say.
	They take this so seriously, they can't even show up for the hearing.
	Who would be your next witness?
	Your Honor, a plaintiff would call Mr. Jarrett.
	Jarrett.
	So who is Mr. Jarrett?
	Okay, I forget who he is as a function, but let's just get this going.
	So I get the vibe of the lawyer with the guy with the long hair.
	He was pretty good.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, he's coming.
	Sir, if you'll make your way in front of my clerk, she will swear you in.
	Okay.
	Just to get his title, although I think the chat might have already gotten it.
	Thank you, sir.
	If you'll just make your way over to the witness stand.
	So Barris is testifying this afternoon, Robert.
	I think so.
	I don't know if his testimony will still be considered relevant given the court's exclusions.
	As soon as you're ready, Mr. Olson, you may proceed.
	But he had evidentiary testimony that supported that the voter suppression was real.
	Morning.
	Can you please state your full name for the record?
	I'm just who you are.
	Robert Scott Jarrett.
	And what is your occupation?
	I am the co-elections director.
	I oversee in-person voting and tabulation.
	Okay, so...
	How long have you held that position?
	What did you think?
	Did you see his testimony?
	He was totally defensive.
	Totally nervous.
	Let me see if I can find some of the highlights of his testimony.
	Is that analysis performed in-house?
	Or do you outsource it to an outside?
	It's performed in-house.
	He looked very nervous and had glazed eyes.
	Is it fair to say that you rely on those forecasts in planning for the election?
	Oh, that's right.
	So they were saying, they got him on, they were forecasting the amount of votes, the amount of voters to turn out, expected delay time, etc., etc.
	He refused to acknowledge that if people had to wait an hour to vote, that it was an interruption or an interference, I forget the word.
	In cross-examination...
	In cross-examination, they said, were you aware that some politicians were encouraging everyone to come vote in person on the day of, which might have added to traffic?
	And he says, oh, yes, I was aware of that.
	They said people should come down and vote in person, as if to suggest that added to the delays.
	But then they went back to his forecasts, one of which actually forecast 290,000 day voters, as opposed to the 272 that actually voted.
	So that's going to be part of their evidentiary inference for the number of votes in dispute.
	So he himself believed there would be 18,000 more voters than actually ballots were cast.
	I'm going to be doing this all day.
	This is a long day.
	Let me see if I can find the part where he refuses to acknowledge.
	So you don't believe that what happened on November 8th was not a disruption?
	A disruption was the word.
	In the election process?
	I do not catch it as that.
	Are you aware that Supervisor Gates came out on Election Day and said 20% of all vote centers were affected by these issues with ballots being rejected by the tabulators?
	Again, we didn't have ballots rejected by tabulators.
	They were not being read in by tabulators.
	But that's not a disruption when voters still had ballot options to participate in dropping in those ballots in our secure door number three, which is a similar process that eight other counties use as their only option for voters to be able to return their ballots.
	My question isn't what other options existed for voters.
	My question is, would you agree that there was a disruption?
	Of at least 20% of the vote centers in Maricopa that caused delays in the voting process.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	The witness has already answered this question as to whether he characterizes it as a disruption.
	I'll overrule.
	If you can answer it, you may, sir.
	I'm not changing my response.
	I refuse to call it a disruption.
	Do you believe that...
	Did you hear of any reports of wait times to vote of over 60 minutes?
	Yes, I did.
	What is the target wait time in your model?
	Do you know?
	On average, a half an hour.
	I think in their model it said six to eight minutes per vote.
	I think they're going to get to that.
	Please turn to Bates Stamped 047.
	It's page 17. Still Exhibit 2, correct?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Do you see the section entitled Time Needed to Vote a Ballot, Mr. Jarrett?
	Yes, I do.
	And do you see the second paragraph under that section where it says, on average...
	We estimate that it will take voters between 4.4 and 6.4 minutes to vote in the 2022 primary ballot, and between 8.5 and 10.5 minutes to vote the 2022 November general election ballot.
	That's to complete and fill out the ballot.
	So is it your testimony in the 30 minutes?
	So it'll take 10 minutes to fill out a ballot?
	Come on!
	I don't know.
	How many issues were on the ballot?
	How many checkboxes?
	What reading material is there on the ballot?
	10 minutes?
	Why is it going to take 10 minutes to fill out a ballot?
	So even if it takes 6 to 10 minutes to fill out the ballot, then you're waiting in line for a half an hour.
	That's 40 minutes to vote.
	I don't know, Robert.
	Historically, what have been unjustified?
	It varies, but usually it's 20, 30 minutes to get in there and out of there.
	In Canada?
	10 to 15 minutes, give or take.
	Takes you a few minutes.
	Maybe two minutes to fill out a ballot.
	Rarely takes more than that.
	I don't see anybody that takes much longer than that.
	It's not like you get to get one there and deliberate.
	We can even read it.
	Time needed to vote a ballot.
	The length of the ballot or a limited number of voting booths can also create wait times at voting locations.
	A limited number of voting booths.
	That means his time estimate, he's not talking about limiting number of voting booths because of how long it takes to fill out the ballot.
	Go ahead.
	We have to evaluate the time it takes to vote a ballot and establish sufficient capacity in our voting locations to reduce bottlenecks.
	For the August primary, because this was retrospective, we anticipate 10 to 14 contested offices and 4 to 6 additional contests on the ballot.
	For the November general election, the majority of the ballots will have between 65 and 75 total contests.
	It's a big-ass ballot.
	On average, we estimate that it will take between 4.4 to 6.4 minutes to vote the 2022 August primary ballots and between 8.5 and 10.5 minutes to vote the 2022 November general election ballot based on these time estimates and the amount of time we have calculated.
	To check in, we can determine how many voting booths are needed to eliminate bottlenecks in our voting centers.
	We've established the following voting location guidelines for the room size of a voting location and the number of check-in stations and voting booths to accommodate voters and minimize wait times.
	And then they go here.
	14 to 2,000 square feet, 8 sites, 25 voting booths.
	2,000 to 3,000 square feet, 12 site books, 30 voting booths.
	It's interesting.
	The time audit projected for a normal election to enter into the vote center, cast your ballot, and leave.
	No, our average was 30 minutes in line to check in, and then a few minutes to receive their ballot, upwards of 8.5 to 10.5, so in the 2020 general election, 8.5 to 10.5 minutes to complete the ballot.
	And then there could be some time to then wait in line at the tabulator to put in their ballot and feed it into a tabulator.
	Did you ever become aware of multiple reports at various vote centers in Maricopa County where wait times exceeded two hours?
	Listen to this.
	Exceeded two hours?
	No.
	They didn't exceed two hours.
	You were not aware of that?
	Our data shows that we had some voting locations approaching two hours, but not exceeding.
	Even at some locations approaching two hours, would you consider that a disruption?
	That's why we post wait times on our website, which was highly publicized and advertised.
	In all of those locations, we had close-by locations.
	So, for example, Biltmore was approaching two hours in the last hour of the voting day.
	With two miles away at Faith Lutheran, there was a voting location that had a one-minute.
	During that same time, the longest time, that last hour of the day.
	So there were options for voters to be able to participate even at those other voting locations.
	What are you basing the accuracy of the reported wait times on?
	On information that poll workers return to us.
	So it's the number of voters in line at that point in time.
	They report those every 15 minutes.
	And then we can calculate the wait time based on how long it would take.
	Someone to check in at a voting location.
	So if those poll workers were testifying under oath of wait times exceeding two hours at multiple locations, how would that square with what the county was reporting on its system?
	Are they just mistaken?
	People can make estimates, but unless they're actually timing them, they could be inaccurate.
	Our wait times are based off exactly how long it takes a voter to check in through that process, have a ballot printed, and based off those numbers of voters that are standing in line at that point in time.
	And how is that figure calculated?
	This is the part I didn't understand.
	Based off prior elections, and so we can gauge how long it takes a voter to get checked in.
	Then we can also see how many voters are checking in at a voting location throughout the day.
	Okay.
	Robert, I'm going to put this on pause.
	I've been told there's a locals tip.
	Let's see if I can do this.
	Yeah, we have five or six of them.
	Here, I'll read the first one, then you can get the other one.
	I just lost it.
	Oh, hold on.
	I can do a few more and I can see them all.
	Okay.
	Deb and Dogs.
	I don't know if there's a way for me to bring this up.
	Deb and Dogs sent a $5 tip.
	She says the ballot for the general was two pages.
	It took many people 30 minutes.
	I worked the polls with two-hour-long wait times.
	That is Deb and Dogs.
	MightyPay with a $2 tip says, glad you're here to give your input on this, Robert.
	Thank you very much, Robert.
	And then we got a good meme.
	Here, I can bring up the pictures, but I can't bring up the comment quite as easily.
	Hold on, I'll bring this one up.
	Although this is risky because I didn't look at it close enough before doing this.
	Tim Burton, eat your heart out.
	A Christmas film that's so good, for goodness sake.
	Alright, Robert, you want to read some of the other tips?
	The others were mostly just comments, or ones that I've already addressed.
	My takeaway is that they established one component that they needed to establish.
	A good evidentiary foundation for intentional Printer tabulator issues at Maricopa County.
	And now the only question is consequence.
	And then the other big area that they have is ballot chain of custody that they've been allowed to.
	For those that don't know, the court did not allow them to present evidence of all the signature match problems, which would by themselves easily granted their right to a new election.
	And that's why, in my view, the court turned it down and applied a ludicrous latches doctrine.
	Robert, you know what I can do here?
	Check this out.
	I have an idea.
	Boom.
	This won't be the most ideal way of doing it, but it'll be screen and screen.
	NJ2FLA.
	I thought the security tech witness said the 19-inch image was visually different from the 20-inch, therefore shrink to fit would only appear smaller but not different.
	No, I think he meant visually different as in he could see more borders around the 19-inch that was shrink to fit.
	And then Joseph Kasky says, I love your work Barnes and Viva went out of the app so I could send a few bucks.
	Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
	Thank you very much, Joseph.
	And let me see if I can scroll back up here to see how many, if I can, this might be the easy way to do it.
	Okay, we got Viva.
	This is Ken Media Reader.
	Why not challenge word button?
	It's just an attempt to color and mislead.
	There is no button, only secure access application option.
	Right, right.
	Who do we have coming up in the afternoon?
	Lawyers trying to play off idiots.
	In other words, everybody knows that there's a bunch of ways in which various technical errors can happen and shrink to fit is something that people commonly do.
	And so that's what he's trying to play off of, is ignorance of the reality that in the election context...
	These things can only happen at the administrator level because everything's secure and password protected.
	If he's right, their security was a complete crock.
	There's no good defense they have.
	Either their security was so bad that some idiot could put shrink to fit and screw up all the ballots, or somebody at the security level intentionally made changes that created problems.
	Either one is a complete indictment.
	It's a confession that the heist could have been committed, and you're only arguing about whether you left the door unlocked or whether you unlocked the door yourself.
	So I thought that defense was very weak.
	Where the court will try to go is my guess.
	The other area, which will be that it's not enough ballots that they can prove weren't counted for that reason.
	That's where the court's likely to.
	Go.
	But I think the court's wrong on that.
	That's because the court doesn't want to overturn the election.
	The court admitted he didn't want to overturn it.
	He said so in the order.
	He'll find any excuse not to overturn it.
	And that's what happens when outsiders bring election contests.
	When insiders bring election contests, when it's a Democratic Party, when it's George W. Bush, courts are all ears.
	When it's an outsider like Carrie Lake, They find 100 excuses not to overturn the election.
	But I think the best evidence of the day was the expert witness testimony.
	The fact that the government's witnesses, or government, even though they're witnesses for Carrie Lake, or Carrie Lake called them, they were government witnesses.
	The fact that one of them is hiding out in Panama City to help run the election, and the other one is a sneaky dodgy guy that was running apparently all the technology aspect, which tells you another big problem.
	And was not even admitting basic things like two-hour-plus delays or two-hour delays is a disruption.
	Not being able to have your ballot counted is a disruption.
	Saying that's not a disruption, that's incredulous.
	What's incredible is that someone pointed out, like, the digital machines take longer to vote than paper and pencil ballots.
	I don't like machines.
	Machines create all these risks and all these problems.
	Otherwise, they have to, like, they can still do it the old-fashioned way, you know, literally stuff the ballot, literally destroy ballots, literally replace ballots.
	But what machines do is they allow 100 other creative ways for somebody to screw with an election.
	That's why I don't like machines' involvement.
	I think they should be a backup mechanism.
	For digitizing ballots.
	After ballots are already counted.
	After everything goes through.
	All the rest should be in paper.
	Isn't that the way they do it in Canada?
	Isn't most of it on paper?
	It's all paper.
	You have to check in, show two pieces of ID if you don't have proper ID.
	Man, the Canadians are racist.
	Totally.
	It's outrageous.
	I'm going to read these.
	I'm going to scroll up and get a few more.
	Eurison3030 says, Unreadable ballots are recreated by someone else for counting.
	Two, can this 19 to 20 open the door to a chain of custody or other charges or other dismissed charges?
	The chain of custody charge was not dismissed.
	It's the other big issue they have.
	Okay.
	Okay, this one I read already, and let's go all the way down.
	Look at this.
	I figured out a hack of sorts.
	I know that there's an external software that I'm told that could allow you to bring up the chat like you see in StreamYard, but did we read this one?
	Okay, we read that one.
	Let's go a little more down because there was another one here.
	Not that this is driving everyone crazy to see.
	Oh, here we go.
	No, we got that one too as well.
	There was a new super chat that came in at the bottom.
	No, we saw that one as well.
	How far up did I go here?
	Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richard lied under oath.
	PAC pro-democracy Republicans of Arizona shrink to fit gates.
	Okay, here's a bunch.
	No, not password protected.
	Shrink to fit is unavailable to the election parameters it was specifically attested to.
	Yes.
	Puzzling says, if the court claims the print issue was resolved by counting the duplicates and chain of custody not of a concern, does Lake have a route to appeal to a higher court?
	Yeah, Lake can appeal to both the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.
	But it's very unlikely, given their history, that they'll do anything better.
	Just Thinking says, a ballot style is a specific ballot layout.
	Maricopa response to Attorney General Page 2, or AG, Page 2 said they had over 12,000 ballot styles.
	How can anyone justify that many different ballot layouts?
	Agreed.
	And that's why, you know, the old system, for those people that don't know, is they come up with the ballot.
	I mean, I'll give you an example.
	They have used this excuse for years to prevent third-party and independent candidates from getting on the ballot late.
	So they create ridiculous deadlines for when a third party or independent candidate can get on the ballot way in advance of the election.
	Their excuse has always been, oh, we have to send the ballot to the printer.
	And because we've got to send this out, it has to conform.
	We have to have it approved by everybody.
	We have to make sure there's no error, risk of issues, etc.
	So, obviously, that's a crock in the modern era.
	I mean, if they're printing, changing, styling ballots digitally, whatever they want, however they went, such that, according to Maricopa County's own lawyer, they could just shrink to fit and screw it all up.
	But the way the process to work is everybody agrees on it.
	They show what the ballot will look like printed.
	Everybody agrees on it.
	Now, you can have different ballots.
	Because you'll have different states where you're voting will dictate whether certain elections are available in your local community.
	And you'll have county offices, state offices, city offices, etc.
	And then they have ballots that get mailed out for the purposes of the military.
	Now, of course, mass mail-in balloting.
	But what's supposed to happen is you have strict chain of custody.
	Here's what our ballot's going to look like.
	Number one, everybody agrees on.
	Anybody who wants to contest it can.
	Then it goes to the printer, and they print a certain number of ballots.
	They come back, and then they either mail them out or give them out, and you have strict chain of custody on all of it.
	And if you, for some reason, a ballot has some problem with it, as was attested to, the traditional protocol is you print, and then you give them a second ballot, but you attach the two so that there's no double counting of the ballot.
	And so that you know ballot one matches ballot two.
	That you don't replace a Carrie Lake ballot with a Katie Hobbs ballot.
	One of the reasons why Lake's people were all concerned is because on election day, she should have, by everybody's expectations, including media polls, she should have won by a bigger margin than she did.
	And so the question was, okay, could this have happened by some means?
	Other than voters' intent.
	And some of that's voter suppression and ballot exclusion and double-counting ballots.
	But one way you could do it is to create a system that would create mass duplication.
	And the duplicate ballots either don't get counted or the duplicate ballots change who the vote was for.
	And to be honest with you, that's the only reason a duplicate ballot wouldn't be attached to the original ballot.
	It's because you would look at it and say, hold on a second, this ballot says Lake, this ballot says Hobbs.
	I mean, that's what it looks to me like what happened in Arizona.
	I'm looking now to see for the live feed because I want to make sure Right Side News has music playing and it says they're ending their broadcast in seven minutes.
	Yeah, because it will be coming up and it will be live at noon my time.
	The trial should start back up in about eight minutes.
	Yeah, well, that's what I'm saying.
	And I think...
	Right Side News, I think they said, programming alert broadcast ends on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in seven and a half minutes.
	I think that means they're broadcasting, and then they're going to take it over to Rumble.
	Let me just cough for one second.
	But I'm trying to find a live...
	They're moving it to Rumble.
	Okay.
	I'm just trying to find a live feed on YouTube to continue watching from that doesn't involve...
	The court calendar live feed has gone down.
	So this is where...
	I'll show you all this here.
	This is where people were getting the Zoom feed.
	This used to be the live Zoom feed, and it seems to be not working for the time being.
	Yeah, they probably don't.
	Some courts, you know, just...
	Shut it down for lunch.
	Yeah.
	All right, and then this is Right Side News, which they're going to end on YouTube and go to Rumble.
	So if I have to go back and poll someone who gets the feed from Rumble, we can do that.
	And I'm just looking...
	Where was I looking?
	Here.
	And I don't see any live right now, but they might have just killed the stream for lunch.
	Okay, we'll see what happens in seven minutes.
	Warbro, what do you have this afternoon?
	Nothing particular.
	Okay, so we'll keep going.
	While we're streaming, I might go and walk the dogs and maybe play with a kid who's been home with the sniffles today.
	Last day of school, and we're supposed to be going back to Canada for a little over a week.
	We'll see what happens crossing the border.
	We don't know who the witnesses are this afternoon.
	Barris is slated to testify, but we don't know for how long or when, necessarily.
	Correct.
	Laura was in the chat before.
	We brought up a couple of comments from her.
	And then tomorrow, do you know who's on the witness list?
	Tomorrow is the government's side.
	Okay.
	It's going to be amazing.
	I mean, the ballot chain of custody issue is the big next issue for Lakeside to get into.
	So the ballot chain of custody, I mean, I guess explain what that means.
	They were getting at it a little bit, in that they were saying, you know, people vote at voting centers, and then what's the chain of custody?
	They got into it with the second guy, not the one from the office.
	They said, you know, who watches it?
	Do you know how many there are when it goes from the voting booths to the counting centers?
	I mean, the problem with all this computer system stuff is, first of all, you don't have a single source of origin of limited ballots being printed.
	Because any time the computer, you can just print a ballot from the computer.
	And so it interrupts the whole ballot chain of custody by itself.
	And what they detailed in the complaint was a range of issues about ballot chain of custody, particularly involving that private vendor.
	That has its own issues and ramifications.
	And so we'll see if they can prove what they presented as the evidence concerning that.
	And so that's their other evidentiary claim that the court allowed to go forward.
	Let me see something here.
	I'm going to keep looking for...
	Is there an update on the Viva merch store?
	There isn't.
	There might be an update on the merch store coming during the stream.
	If there is, I'll pull it up.
	And if not, I'll just show the standard merch.
	And the idea of...
	Do you know what the protocol is for the chain of custody?
	I appreciate it.
	There's a bunch.
	I mean, the problem with the way they do with machines is there's a bunch of opportunities for interference with ballot chain of custody.
	But here's the traditional ballot chain of custody.
	You limit the printing of ballots.
	You give them out at certain precincts on Election Day.
	People come in, you hand them the ballot, and you have a limited number of ballots that have ever got printed.
	Then duplicate ballots get attached if there has to be a problem with the first ballot for the purposes of counting the ballot.
	And then those ballots are stored in a secure manner.
	And he was talking about sealed, not scotch tape kind of thing.
	But with better, more effective means so that someone...
	The reason for people...
	What he was saying, the witness, at the end about sealing, what he means is there's certain ways to preserve access such that you will know if somebody breached the seal.
	When you just scotch tape it, someone can just cut it up, open it up, do whatever they want with the balance, and then re-scotch tape it.
	That's not a secure system at all.
	And that's what he was saying he witnessed.
	And they got back into that after the judge had excluded that evidence.
	It's kind of dumb on their part.
	I think he thought he had some genius point.
	Oh, we had tape on it.
	It was actually S.H.I.E.L.D., wasn't it?
	I mean, that's something that appears to not...
	You see both the arrogance and the incompetence of Maricopa County in their very defense.
	The way the witnesses have testified.
	How they've arrogantly taken the proceedings.
	One going on vacation and showing up in his t-shirt in a condo.
	The other one denying that a multiple hour delay could possibly be called a simple disruption on election day.
	And then you see it in the questioning by the Maricopa County lawyer.
	That they don't take it seriously and they're utterly incompetent.
	In the way they go about this process.
	So arguing shrink to fit is somehow an excuse when that's as damning as anything else about the ineptitude of the Maricopa County election officials.
	And this is why courts never want the world to see these proceedings.
	Because people will see this, they see the arrogance.
	They see the incompetence.
	And this was the question.
	Thank you, Barry Kram.
	Yes, please.
	Viva, please mention the chain of custody issue mentioned by Stephen Richer.
	It was Richer, not the second guy.
	No one counted the ballots before they left the voting centers going to MC Tech.
	Richer said when they take them...
	Oh, I hear something in the background.
	That when they take them back from the voting centers, they don't count them.
	They don't know how many are there.
	They just take them and then they go count them at MC Tech, which I thought was a problem.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	And I prefer the old way where you counted at the precincts, and then the precincts would call it into the county.
	Centralized ballot counting creates lots of opportunities for election fornication, but one of those is the chain of custody of those ballots from the precinct to the downtown location.
	And I want to see if I can find anybody who has a good feed.
	I've got a feed here.
	Let me just bring this one up until I find a better one because Right Side News is going to Rumble.
	So we got this.
	I think I could make this bigger.
	How did I make this bigger?
	This.
	So let's deal with this for the time being because they're coming back.
	And when I find a better feed on RSB...
	I don't want to...
	I guess I can go find them on Rumble.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can find them on Rumble here.
	RSBN.
	Then I'm going to get up and stretch my legs and pee again.
	Okay, so let's see.
	Their rumble feed looks good.
	Hold on.
	Actually, that's just an ad.
	Just got it.
	Okay, so they've still got music.
	All right, this is CV2022.
	095403.
	This is Lake v.
	Hobbs et al.
	Continuation of the hearing on the election challenge.
	Present for the record are...
	Parties are representatives in their respective council.
	We have Mr. Parikh still on the witness stand under oath, and we are ready to continue with the first examination.
	This will be by Ms. Khanna, I believe.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	With the opportunity to streamline over the lunch break, we have no further questions at this time.
	Thank you.
	Well then.
	Okay.
	I have a very brief redirect.
	You have a few points, Your Honor.
	No, that is fine.
	You get redirect.
	I'm smiling because I have a lawyer characterizing something as brief.
	I'll do my best, Your Honor.
	Excuse my smile.
	But this is redirect, Mr. Olson.
	You may proceed.
	Mr. Parikh, Mr. Liddy asked you some questions about duplicate ballots.
	And kind of like...
	Hey, if there was a shrink to fit, that that was no big deal because the duplicate would be captured or accepted by the tabulator.
	What happens during the duplication process?
	The original ballot is examined.
	Another clean ballot is set beside it and the ballot is duplicated.
	All those votes are transferred and verified.
	In the duplication process, could the image of a 19-inch image from the original be transposed onto a 20-inch ballot?
	As the duplicated ballot?
	Yes.
	In other words, if you had a 19-inch image on 20-inch paper, the original image, and then the ballot is duplicated and run through the scanner, Could the duplicated ballot be brought up to a 20-inch image?
	Yes, it should be.
	If the ballot was originally a 20-inch ballot, the blank ballot that they would transfer the votes to would be 20-inch.
	So, yes, it would be tabulated.
	It would necessarily be moved to a 20-inch image in order to be tabulated.
	Yes, that's the only way it could be tabulated.
	Yes.
	People, bear with me.
	I'm doing this right now.
	Here, we're just going to go.
	I can't deal with that not seeing the screen for the witness.
	This is Right Side News.
	They seem to have a good...
	Here we go.
	Play.
	Oh, come on.
	Could the duplicated ballot be brought up to a 20-inch image?
	Yes, it should be.
	If the ballot was originally a 20-inch ballot, the blank ballot that they would bring to...
	Put the votes, transfer the votes to, would be 20-inch.
	So yes, it would be tabulated.
	It would necessarily be moved to a 20-inch image in order to be tabulated.
	Yes, that's the only way it could be tabulated.
	Yes, and at the point of duplication, anything could happen to alter or not the original ballot, correct?
	If you're duplicating a ballot, what's to stop somebody from altering the ballot from its original...
	Objection, Your Honor.
	My apologies.
	This is beyond the scope of direct and cross, I believe.
	He's asking for new opinions that he never offered.
	Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Liddy is the one who brought up duplication and that it was no big deal.
	This is directly relevant to his examination and implication that duplication means that no harm, no foul.
	I agree with you in terms of the scope of redirect.
	I'm a little concerned about foundation, but...
	She didn't raise foundation.
	Why would the judge ask whatever questions you, Mr. Liddy?
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	I apologize, but the duplication process is in Title 16. It's a very important part of the process.
	I would never and have never...
	Characterize it as no big deal.
	And I object to his mischaracterization of my description of that important process.
	Give me 10 minutes, people.
	I'm going to go squeeze pudge.
	Mr. Olson, do you have another question, please?
	Mr. Parikh, Mr. Liddy asked you if you had asked for the duplicated ballots.
	And you said in the beginning, Your testimony is that you had asked Mr. Jarrett and were given an answer that there was no way to trace.
	And then subsequent to that, when you were asked the question again, you said you did not ask.
	What was the distinction that you were drawing in terms of asking for the duplicated ballot?
	I thought Mr. Liddy was asking me if I had planned on, if it was in my plan of what I selected and wanted to see.
	As far as the sample size.
	And I did not plan that.
	I did not plan that.
	It was made clear there was time taken to ensure that all the inspectors were aware of how the process would be, the amounts we were allowed, and all that.
	And they were provided to us.
	And when they were, I asked.
	I did ask where the duplicated were, but that was as part of the court-ordered process to look at those.
	So that the record is clear, when you asked for the duplicated ballot while you were there at M-TAC, and who did you ask again?
	Was it Mr. Jarrett?
	Mr. Jarrett, yes.
	And what was his response?
	He said they would have to get texts, and it would take up to a week to trace that down.
	You heard Mr. Jarrett testify that there was no way that a 19-inch image was placed on 20-inch paper in the November 2022 general election, correct?
	Yes.
	And is there any way that a 19-inch Ballot image placed on 20-inch paper in this election in Maricopa, whether it was tabulated by the Vote Center tabulator or the tabulators at EmTech, that that 19-inch ballot image would be accepted by the tabulator.
	There's no way a 19-inch image on 20-inch paper could be accepted by the tabulator.
	You also examined early votes, correct?
	Yes, sir, I did.
	And you testified that those were votes that were printed by Runbeck?
	Yes, sir.
	Did you see out of any of those early votes that you inspected or observed a 19-inch image on 20-inch paper?
	No, sir, I did not.
	So the 19-inch image on 20-inch paper was only an existing condition on the...
	Ballot-on-demand printed ballots which were the day of the election.
	Is that accurate?
	Yes, sir.
	That's accurate.
	What did I miss?
	fresh here.
	You took a picture of those ballots side-by-side in your report, correct?
	I did not take the picture physically.
	The photograph was provided to me.
	When I initially saw it, it may not to a normal voter or user that looks to pick this up, but again, I examined all types of media in all types of ways, and it jumped out at me, and I requested to get a copy of that image, because to me, that was very damning.
	That photograph was an overlay.
	It did confirm my conclusions that it was a shrinkage.
	Should there ever be, as Mr. Liddy characterized, a shrink-to-fit ballot that comes out for some people's ballots and not others?
	I'm here to state the technical scientific facts.
	I gave the options.
	Mr. Liddy's assumptions of a shrink-to-fit.
	Is inaccurate and to boot or to further on add that if the ballot definition is 20 inches and you print it on 20 inch paper, shrink to fit will do nothing.
	The margins will be exactly the same as they are on a regular ballot and they should be tabulated.
	But what he referred to cannot happen.
	The only other technical possibility for that happening is if somebody messed with the print drivers and made Even though 20-inch paper was loaded, made the printer think it was 19 inches, and that would cause the shrink to fit.
	Only technical option that would address Mr. Liddy's scenario.
	Thank you, Mr. Parikh.
	No further questions, Your Honor?
	Can we excuse the witness?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Thank you, Mr. Freak.
	You're welcome, sir.
	You done good.
	I still don't know what his name is, but Prisher?
	No, that was Richard.
	What's this guy's name?
	How do you spell it?
	He done good.
	Your Honor, at this time, we'd like to call Aaron Smith.
	Who's Aaron Smith?
	There's a super chat that I missed.
	Why do I think Viva has a squatty potty?
	Your Honor, I'm not sure that we have Mr. Smith on the witness list.
	Absolutely was disclosed.
	On the witness list, are we filed with the court yesterday?
	I'll have to look, but I know that we disclosed.
	So, by the way, just to answer that question, Peckerwood, my wife did get me a squatty potty for Christmas about six years ago.
	It did nothing.
	In your opinion, how bad was the incompetency for the county?
	I am IT in the Navy and everything he said is spawned on.
	Incompetence might be a very favorable way of describing it.
	Now what I might do is put my pulsing avatar on and go entertain a child for maybe 20 or 30 minutes and then come back, but I can listen while I do that.
	Yes.
	This is an odd mistake.
	It's right there.
	Okay, there you go.
	The list I'm looking at, Your Honor does show Aerosmith designated a witness.
	If Your Honor wants to give me a few minutes, I can go through my emails and what the court was given.
	And I don't know that we provided that list, Your Honor.
	I think you have.
	We also, I think there was an email communication from plaintiff's counsel expressly asking us to take Mr. Smith off of the list.
	Trying to find out who Mr. Smith is and where he is.
	Mr. Smith.
	Can you show me that list then?
	Mr. Smith, I can't stand the smell of this place.
	Well, if they're objecting to Mr. Smith, he might have something that they don't want to testify to.
	Travis Ryder.
	Hey, Robert.
	I hope, Travis, you didn't mean to include a comment.
	If you did, put a comment in not Super Chat and I'll bring it up.
	Looking at Rumble here.
	Hobbs Lawyer looks very dodgy.
	Euro Wars.
	I agree, Viva.
	It's boring.
	They quibble over procedural stuff.
	Who's Mr. Smith?
	I mean, basically, yeah, that's the Smith in the library with the lead pie.
	I loved Clue as a kid.
	I didn't know who that was.
	I thought that was a more sinister joke.
	Does Viva have piles?
	What are piles?
	Hemorrhoids?
	No idea.
	I won't answer the other question.
	This time we would call Bradley Benincourt.
	Oh, so they...
	Bradley Bettencourt.
	So Mr. Smith is gone.
	I guess they agreed not to...
	Well, they can always call him later as they review the status of their interaction.
	They're trying to find...
	Who's Mr. Smith?
	I thought Smith was one of the state's tech people, I thought, but maybe I'm mistaken.
	Well, I can tell you, I already don't like the color of the tie of the person who just walked in front of the camera.
	I'm joking, people.
	Just trying to show that I'm observational.
	That's a very personal question.
	Don't answer it.
	What are piles?
	Hold on.
	I'm Googling this right now.
	Although that might answer the question if I have to Google it.
	Hold on.
	Piles.
	What are piles?
	Your Honor, we're going to have a change of plans and call Heather Hunt.
	Okay, they're hemorrhoids.
	It's not that personal request.
	I couldn't catch that.
	I heard change of plans and he turned around.
	Heather Hunt.
	We're going to call another witness, Your Honor, Heather Hine.
	Heather Hine.
	Okay.
	Sorry about that, Your Honor.
	Okay, let's change the subject slightly, people.
	Is the witness waiting outside?
	Yes, she's coming in now.
	Could you just hold on one second and have her stay outside just a second?
	Stay on one second.
	Thank you.
	This was another issue that was raised in the 807 notice by plaintiffs that they were going to use hearsay.
	I apologize, Mr. Olsen.
	You're having a hard time hearing me, and I'll try and speak up.
	The disclosure that I received had a listed...
	So all I have is information that this witness is going to testify about a voicemail from someone with a first name, no last name.
	Well, Your Honor...
	I don't have any substance.
	Okay, it's a voicemail from somebody by the name of Betty who identifies herself as working at the Department of Elections for Maricopa County.
	The voicemail was left to my client in response to a...
	A FOIA request, a Public Records Act request that was made for chain of custody documentation.
	And the voicemail, we believe, Your Honor, is a statement against interest.
	Because they basically say, well, don't know.
	Okay.
	It has been disclosure.
	They're saying an anonymous recording.
	I'll record it from someone they don't know.
	How would somebody know to call this person to respond to a public records act request unless they are working for the government who received the public records act request?
	For the purposes of testifying about hearsay testimony by somebody named Betty, who is not a party in this case, and therefore cannot make any statements, admissions on behalf of the party.
	And this so-called voicemail has no authentication, so I would object on foundation as well, Your Honor.
	I can understand it.
	It hasn't been disclosed.
	To me, you present the evidence, and what he's arguing about is the credibility of the evidence, not its initiative.
	Your Honor, Betty identifies herself as someone working in the Maricopa County Department of Elections.
	She also identifies that she is responding to my client regarding a Public Records Act request that was...
	I'm sorry, I said my client.
	She was responding to my witness regarding a Public Records Act request.
	It was my client who made that Public Records Act request.
	And Betty is explaining in the voicemail that...
	They're still looking for the records, but they have no idea, and she's got to go on vacation, so she should call back and talk to somebody else.
	This is a Public Records Act request, Your Honor, that is directly relevant to the trial here today.
	That's not my problem.
	I agree with you.
	I see the relevance of what you're arguing.
	My problem and where I'm focusing my questioning is the authentication and the disclosure of this because you're asking for this under 807 as an exception because there's not another recognized exception to the hearsayable.
	And I didn't see anything disclosed.
	You're telling me this today.
	This is the first I'm hearing it.
	So what, your honor?
	: Uh-oh, what happened to the audio?
	When everything else is gone, this is the Hail Mary that says...
	Understood, Your Honor.
	I've got nothing else, Judge.
	Put it in 807, just...
	Against interest, especially in this case.
	We have pending litigation between my client and the county regarding their operation of this election, Your Honor.
	And it is a statement made by Betty identifying herself as an employee of the Maricopa County Records Department.
	My witness, Your Honor, will get on the stand and testify that she deals with Betty with respect to public...
	Audio keeps getting cut out.
	So that's your offer of proof that your client, not client, your witness was going to testify that this is a known person to her.
	In other words, she could recognize a voice.
	She knows.
	Oh, this audio is annoying here.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if the other audio is better.
	Here's a request.
	Did I get it right?
	You got it right, Your Honor.
	That's the right protocol, is to make an offer of proof.
	Here's what this witness will testify to.
	We can't authenticate who she is, and she cannot make an admission on behalf of any of the parties in this litigation.
	And the fourth point, Your Honor, is not admissibility.
	It's not one of the two counts before this court at this time.
	He clearly can authenticate the voicemail.
	He's confusing authentication with whether this person is credible or they can be on the voicemail.
	Two separate matters.
	That's not an authentic.
	Authentication is, this is in fact the real voicemail I receive.
	On this voicemail, Your Honor.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Somebody noted that they didn't realize Gary Bush is a lawyer.
	I'm not testifying a making argument, Your Honor, regarding the evidence.
	What you're making is an offer of proof, correct, Mr. Blunt?
	I'm doing that as well.
	And I can submit one formally if you would like, Your Honor.
	But in terms of offering proof to this court, A, my witness will testify that she is familiar with betting.
	My witness will testify.
	That her employees are familiar with Betty.
	My witnesses will testify that she works with Betty in getting records from Maricopa County in response to FOIA requests, Your Honor.
	And you've also told me that this was disclosed previously, yes?
	I am, Your Honor, yes.
	When was it disclosed to this?
	Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	This last week has been like four months.
	And if you want, Your Honor, it's going to take me a good 45 minutes to look for our disclosures.
	Stop one second.
	You're an officer of the court.
	I'm just asking for your word.
	I'm telling you it was disclosed, Your Honor.
	You're telling me within the last week?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Close to this morning, something like that.
	Your Honor, that I have created on two separate occasions at their request that I give them access to all of our records via...
	a link so they can go online and download them.
	And I can show this court that I provided them at least two links to do so.
	Wait a minute.
	I don't want to waste a bunch more time on this.
	We've already spent a lot of time on it.
	I'm just down to the last little consideration, which is disclosure, so they're not shocked by this.
	Disclosure is different than saying, here's where all my stuff is.
	You can dig it out.
	Or it's in there somewhere.
	This would be specific.
	You did a specific notice under 807.
	And so you realized that there's an issue with the authentication and the hearsay.
	So all I'm looking to do is verify that this is not something brand new today in terms of identifying this witness in court today.
	It is not, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Letty?
	Your Honor, we've been able to find under 73 and 74 document titled placeholder for voicemail.
	And then E, document titled placeholder for voicemail.
	I would agree, Your Honor, that that does not fit the requirement for disclosure.
	Are you going to play the voicemail?
	Yes, I am, Your Honor, but that is the court's exhibit list.
	I am not allowed to upload audiovisual files to the court system.
	I had an assistant come by and drop before noon, just before noon.
	A flash drive, which was rejected.
	They have these audio recordings, Your Honor.
	I would guarantee you, as they stand here today, they know who Betty is.
	Wait, stop.
	Somebody knows who Betty is because she works in the elections department.
	When I say stop, I don't stop.
	Okay?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	First of all, your understanding of the website uploading links is different than mine.
	You can't upload those.
	Second of all, you did bring a flash drive by yesterday, but your office was told, we can't do that.
	The clerk of the court uploads the exhibits, and so those have to be uploaded through that website link.
	Apparently, there isn't anything uploaded there.
	It depends on how you get voicemails.
	Yeah, it could have been no caller ID.
	We took everything we had in our disclosure and we uploaded it to the system.
	I mean, original voicemail never included the number.
	It's only your current mobile apps and things like that that do that.
	Growing up, we used to have to leave our number for someone to call us back.
	Absolutely.
	I remember answering machines.
	They don't have your exhibit uploaded, so what you would be doing is playing something extraneous that you have that's not been uploaded into the system.
	Uploaded crap.
	Okay, there's audio issues with...
	There's another feed where...
	I'm not doubting you, Mr. Blem, in that regard at all.
	Coming back to this, what I wanted to focus on is whether the defense had notice of this or not.
	Have you heard the voicemail before?
	No, Your Honor.
	I have not heard the voicemail.
	None of the attorneys here have heard the voicemail.
	And we can avow that there's no one in the Department of Elections, Public Relations Department, named Betty.
	Well, here's what I'm going to do, okay?
	Because it's taking too long.
	You can call your witness.
	Your witness can testify.
	And cross-examination can happen, but not play the video or the audio clip because it's not uploaded.
	It's not in the system.
	I don't have that disclosed.
	Your Honor, based on representations by council, we could always play it real quick before I bring the witness in.
	Council represented that there's no one by that name.
	Who works at the Elections Department.
	No, we're not going to go.
	I'm not going to have an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
	It was raised earlier in your notice.
	I told you that the attachment wasn't there.
	Now it's not in the exhibits.
	We're just going to move on.
	You can go ahead and call your witness.
	There'll be cross-examination.
	You can redirect, but we're not going to play a clip that's not uploaded and not previously disclosed under 807.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Would Your Honorable Court reconsider?
	If I can go online at some point today before I'm done with my...
	Because they can't upload it?
	They can't play it?
	Welcome to Mother.
	This is ridiculous.
	The court didn't need to have it beforehand.
	They can look at the evidence afterwards.
	Exactly.
	And again, this goes to credibility.
	Rather than admissibility.
	Under Quebec law, you refuse to allow evidence.
	It's immediate appeal.
	Since statehood, the clerk of the court has been separate from Maricopa County Superior Court for whatever reasons were decided at the time of statehood.
	So they have a separate system.
	I cannot tell the clerk of the court how to do business.
	They run the exhibits, and so I'm...
	Looking to that website at my understanding of it, my clerk telling me what can be uploaded.
	I am not doubting you, Mr. Blem, that you tried to upload the exhibit.
	I'm just not going to hear it.
	The operative question is whether or not it's a surprise to them, meaning the defendants, because they have not heard the video clip.
	That would be something, whether it's uploaded or not, you would have given them previously.
	So your question to me is whether I would reconsider that ruling after Having heard the evidence, if you'd make an offer of proof separate and apart from the witness's testimony, correct?
	What does the proof have to do?
	Uploading it.
	Okay.
	Jessica, the witness will say what it was on.
	I'll accept that.
	You can go ahead and make an offer of proof.
	Do you have that right now?
	The auto-recording?
	Yes.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	We can pull it up.
	Well, that's what I want you to do for your offer of proof.
	Okay, so I'm not sure what I'm saying.
	And may I play it, Your Honor?
	Playing it for me, yes.
	Yes, that's what I mean, Your Honor.
	This is part of your offer of proof, Mr. Bland.
	I'll give the judge credit.
	He's trying to help the lawyer say, here's how you do this properly.
	Just offer the proof.
	Just call it an offer of proof.
	And I hear it.
	And he's just instinctually responding as an advocate.
	Hey, this is why it's so important.
	I'm anticipating that we're going to clip this audio of the voicemail.
	That's a placeholder.
	Okay, so he's going to say...
	And now, Your Honor, I'm hoping she didn't say she was Betsy.
	Hi, Michelle, this is Betsy.
	Oh, you better not glitch.
	Hi, Michelle.
	This is Betty calling with the Maricopa County Department.
	I'm so sorry that I'm calling you back so late.
	I was getting your message yesterday.
	I still don't have information.
	Christy is waiting to receive information as to where that document is.
	We haven't forgotten.
	We just haven't heard back.
	And I just wanted to give you that update, which is really not an update, but it is still on our to-do list to see where we can get that for you.
	Why would this person be fake?
	Once we do have it, we'll call you.
	The county is playing some games with us.
	I'm going to start my holiday tomorrow, and I'm going to be off all through the following week.
	So if you need to touch base, I would say go ahead and touch base directly with Christy.
	And then she can write any updates, but she knows that we need to get you that information and reach back out to you.
	So that's all I have.
	I know it's not much, but I wanted to at least get you that information.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, thank you so much.
	And if I don't talk to you, have a fabulous Christmas and New Year.
	And perhaps we'll talk in the...
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	Sounds like a state official.
	Is this the same one?
	Is that the same one?
	The witness can get up and testify.
	I filed this request.
	I haven't got back the responsive documents.
	What they've told me is they don't have them.
	They're going to make an interesting crank phone call, Your Honor.
	That somebody identifies themselves in the Americana County elections department stating their name and saying How did somebody know to call this person?
	How do they know her number?
	How do they know she filed a public records act request?
	Why does she sound like this?
	My client will testify as to who this individual is.
	The county's not making a credible defense.
	It shows you how incredulous they are.
	My witness will testify.
	Why are they covering up a witness?
	She interacts with this individual.
	Okay.
	And she's fulfilling FOIA requests from the Maricopa County Recorder's Office.
	Very good.
	Okay.
	Go ahead and call your witness.
	I'm going to give it the weight I deem appropriate.
	You should have always gone, Judge.
	This wasn't an authenticity issue.
	Authenticity is, is this voicemail what I claim it is?
	Whether that person is who they say they are is not an authentication issue.
	That is an issue of credibility of whether or not it is who they purport to be.
	And it's a hearsay issue, but it's not an authenticity issue.
	Raise your right hand.
	She'll swear you in.
	I'm just amazing.
	Everybody's going on vacation.
	For anybody in the chat that says, I would just like to hear the hearing, go over to the other places that don't have commentary.
	I'll give you the Nick Ricada warning.
	We will be commenting here.
	That's why we're here.
	In the words of Oliver Northwell, I'm not a positive man.
	Good afternoon, Miss Honey.
	Can you please state your full name for the record?
	Heather Honey.
	What do you do, Miss Honey, for a living?
	I'm an investigator.
	I'm also an auditor.
	I do supply chain consulting as well.
	How long have you engaged in that type of work?
	Man, you're getting so many sexual harassment suits.
	Over 30 years.
	Hey, honey, what's up?
	And so, what do you do as an investigator?
	You're just investigating?
	Yeah, I mean, I do corporate investigations.
	I do, as I mentioned, supply chain investigations, counter diversion, those sorts of things.
	And recently, over the course of the last about two and a half years, our research has sort of expanded into, you know, sort of the government accountability, transparency, and elections.
	She's a true believer.
	I do.
	What is open source research?
	Open source investigations, open source intelligence, is just the use of publicly available information, public records, to do investigations or research.
	So like Maricopa County Elections Department records, would that be correct?
	I do.
	Yes.
	And you can get those.
	In Arizona, it's a public records request that you submit.
	All right.
	And so in terms of your work doing open source investigations and things of that nature, I know you're shy.
	But I also know you teach people.
	Can you give me some background in that?
	This guy's more your conventional...
	Yeah, I do training on open source investigations, open source research.
	I've been doing that sort of training for about five years now.
	And I...
	Good voice, though.
	He has a good voice.
	Who do you train on behalf of?
	Well, I'm a small business owner.
	I own my own company.
	And I wrote my own curriculum.
	And I train clients, military clients, special forces.
	I train law enforcement.
	I train private corporations.
	And I train journalists as well.
	So that's an awesome use of open source.
	Investigation skills for journalism.
	And I think you said special forces?
	Yeah.
	Do you do any work with the department or the DEA?
	I'll just abbreviate.
	I don't believe I've ever had students from the DEA, like Secret Service, like I said, law enforcement agencies, local police departments, those sorts of things.
	All right.
	Very good.
	And so you said you also...
	Got involved in election integrity issues how long ago?
	About two and a half years ago now.
	Two and a half years ago?
	Okay.
	What states have you done research in?
	Some of our research has been in all 50 states.
	They don't call it FOIA usually at the state level.
	They're called sunshine requests.
	In addition to that, we've done Very specific types of research in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, and a little bit of stuff in Georgia as well.
	All right.
	Where they fornicated the last election.
	You work in the state of Arizona.
	You know what is the EPM?
	Yeah, the Election Procedures Manual.
	I'm familiar.
	And I would like to pull up the Elections Procedures Manual right now, Your Honor, Exhibit 60. All right.
	And can you see the monitor in front of you?
	It does.
	Are you fairly well versed in that document?
	I mean, I haven't committed it to memory in its entirety, but I'm familiar with the relevant statutes as they relate to the research that I've done in Arizona.
	Thank you.
	And so let's talk about just generally.
	Explain to this court.
	How you became knowledgeable about Arizona elections as it relates specifically to the issue of chain of custody.
	Yeah, so, you know, obviously the idea here, I mean, I do like vulnerability assessments.
	I do supply chain consulting.
	So what you're looking for, right, is researching what are the vulnerabilities in the election system, for example.
	And so one of the areas that we looked at was the Dropbox chain of custody.
	And the election procedure manual specifically has guidelines starting on page 61, item number seven.
	There are about eight.
	Specific requirements that the recorder is required to do regarding the chain of custody of Dropbox ballots.
	So in addition to the EPM, when we were researching this, we spoke with representatives who had actually participated in the process.
	We talked to ballot couriers who had actually retrieved ballots from Dropbox.
	We spoke with Celia in the Maricopa County.
	Elections department.
	She was very helpful.
	She provided a lot of really useful information in terms of their process.
	The EPM is sort of the guideline for the entire state, but how each county implements the process is different.
	For example, we did research and investigations into the chain of custody in a couple of elections in Arizona.
	Several in Maricopa, but we also looked at the process in Pima County as well.
	So you spent a great deal of time talking to people in Arizona that actually work in the Elections Department?
	Yes.
	That actually work at Runbeck?
	Well, I mean, I spoke with Jeff Ellington.
	I want to say nearly a year ago or so, and he was able to answer a bunch of questions that I had about how Runbeck works.
	Jeff Ellington is the CEO of Runbeck, and recently I had the opportunity to talk to a Runbeck employee who provided a declaration in this case.
	Okay, and you also have the opportunity to work with other election integrity experts and attorneys.
	Yes.
	In the state of Arizona?
	I do.
	I better get to where they're going fast.
	Let's go back to Pennsylvania.
	I'm getting bored here.
	Pennsylvania is where you got your start, isn't it?
	Well, I'm from Pennsylvania, so that's what definitely piqued my interest in sort of the vulnerabilities in the election system and what can be done to fix that.
	In Pennsylvania, I believe it was 2020, wasn't it?
	Yes.
	What did you identify as a particular vulnerability in Arizona at that time?
	Well, in Pennsylvania, I think you mean?
	Yes, Pennsylvania.
	So...
	Relevance?
	Disdain.
	Your Honor just gets...
	The judge is going to get bored with the broad context.
	Yeah, I mean, I still don't know what she's going to testify on.
	I mean, she's there to testify.
	With respect to the state of Arizona.
	How many elections have you looked at in the state of Arizona with respect specifically to the chain of custody issue?
	Three.
	Three.
	Which ones?
	I would have started off with a request.
	It was the 2020 election.
	It was a 2021, I'm sorry, 2022 municipal election, and then this 2022 general.
	What did you need to see?
	What was your understanding was supposed to be there?
	Use the request form.
	The judge would then be okay with this process, with these questions.
	This process is tuning the judge out rather than in.
	Ron, I'd like a moment to review this with my co-counsel before it's published to The Witness.
	It'll be fine.
	Objection.
	Boredom.
	I might have to go make something to eat sooner than later.
	Oy!
	So she is just, she's the one who formulated the FOIA request of her own volition because she investigates.
	She's become a well self-educated person on how elections work.
	Because she woke up after 2020 and used her document open source investigative skill set to be able to figure out what should be there and how to track and trace.
	And when she requested certain key records that should be there, they weren't there.
	Records that would go to the core of the ballot custody issues.
	Your Honor, I'm going to object in that this exhibit, there seems to be more of an exhibit that must have, contains...
	Many handwritten notes.
	Signatures from individuals whose signatures should not be published to the public, Your Honor.
	Where is this ludicrous claim coming that signatures are private records?
	Well, but hold on.
	Is this what she got through the request?
	Let me ask a question, if I could, please.
	Are these signatures related to the 2020 election in Arizona?
	You know, I believe these are...
	May I answer that question?
	Yes.
	No, not to me.
	These are related to 2022.
	This is the 2022 election, Your Honor.
	The documents contained within this PowerPoint are from the 2022 election.
	They were all provided either in response to my client's FOIA request or they are public source documents that are published online, including There's a citation right off the bat, Your Honor, for the EPS.
	And so there's nothing in here that's been a surprise.
	This chart made by my client has also been disclosed.
	And with respect to signatures, Your Honor, signatures are public all the time.
	Signatures are voters.
	People check their...
	They're lists.
	They're roster lists.
	I'm sorry, I'm not active in politics, so I don't know what to call them.
	Somebody in the live chat at locals said that professional Googler might be the right word.
	Okay, I can go on the county recorder's webpage.
	Open source investigative expertise just sounds much better.
	And I can pull up titles, deeds, financial documents, all kinds of records.
	My favorite is open source intelligence, OSINT.
	These documents, Your Honor, which I'm going to move all of the underlying documents into the record, contain no PII.
	We're not talking about birth dates, social security numbers.
	We're not talking about driver's licenses.
	We're talking about Maricopa County's own documents.
	Mr. Liddy?
	Your Honor, if...
	If I heard counsel correctly, he wants to move these in as exhibits, so therefore they're not a demonstrative, and they have not been provided on his exhibit list.
	I'll tell you what, the moment I come across the document that has not been provided on my exhibit list, this court doesn't have, and I'll stop with the demonstrative.
	Demonstrative exhibit into the record.
	I may do so after my client.
	I mean, my witness testifies, Sean.
	But right now, I would like to walk through this demonstrative, which is based on documents received from open source.
	The EPM, you can go online.
	You can...
	Documents that were provided by Maricopa County.
	If I may, Your Honor?
	Yes.
	These documents appear to fall under Title 16168.
	Any person in possession or precinct register of list and holder in part or any reproduction in precinct register of list shall not permit the register of list to be used, bought, sold, otherwise transferred for any purpose other than otherwise authorized in this section.
	And this is not the use authorized in the section for these documents.
	Was that section F?
	It was Section F. It's for election officials or perhaps banded by court to government officials, and the witness is not a government official or an election official, Your Honor.
	Your Honor, if the entirety of Section F were read, there are very clear and very specific exclusions, including the media, Your Honor.
	The media have access to signatures.
	Elections, Your Honor, is an exclusion.
	It does not say government officials running elections.
	And this case, Your Honor, is about an election.
	What's the statute again, 16-1?
	Your Honor, it's Title 16-168-F.
	If I may, Your Honor, I would ask that the counsel direct his comments to the court and not to my co-counsel.
	I'll quit being a baby.
	Sorry, I look around when I talk.
	Don't talk to me.
	Don't look at me, Swan.
	Look at the judge.
	This guy's more your old-school trial lawyer.
	You can tell by the way he walks around the courtroom, that's what he does a lot of.
	Street lawyer.
	Street lawyer-style trial lawyer.
	More emotive narrative structuring.
	You can tell his strong point isn't necessarily legal nuance.
	That isn't what he does well.
	The state is used to getting everything they want and they whine and scream and yell and hoot and holler whenever they don't get what they want.
	They're big babies.
	For the amount of time this is taking, this had better be some damning testimony.
	Okay.
	your representation is that there's none of the information prohibited in the form of Month, date and year of birth, social security number, driver's license number, non-operating identification license number, Indian census number, father's name, mother's maiden name, state or country of birth.
	None of that is contained.
	Oh my goodness.
	And then signatures and voters' email addresses.
	And then...
	None of that's contained in the information, or are you saying it's an exception because it's available to the media?
	The audio is looping out again.
	It specifically carves out exclusions, and one of them are for elections.
	If we didn't have these exclusions, our candidates wouldn't be able to get on the ballot if they couldn't do a signature.
	Okay.
	There are exclusions for the media.
	I believe it goes elections media, Your Honor.
	I may be mistaken.
	I tend to forget.
	The Republican Party of Arizona and state law requires that they count ballots at the vote center.
	So they're suggesting that's another violation that's come out if they're right.
	That's a major violation that Arizona officials have admitted they did.
	It can't be bought, sold, or otherwise transferred for any purpose, except for uses otherwise authorized by this section.
	And you're correct that it talks about authorized uses, including newspaper, radio, television.
	I would also point out, Your Honor, that none of the documents contained within this investigation.
	Your Honor.
	What is the demonstrative exhibit in the testimony going to demonstrate?
	It's a demonstrative exhibit, Your Honor, prepared by...
	It proves us right.
	It makes us look good.
	That's how I was kind of arguing.
	The various chain of custody documents used by the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, as well as the Board of Supervisors.
	I think this is just to show your honor and the court and the witnesses.
	The media deserves to know your honor.
	No, no, no.
	Show what?
	To show the process, the documents used.
	Okay.
	How the flow of ballots moves.
	And I will tell you, Your Honor, it's one of our contentions that because Maricopa County does not adequately maintain chain of custody of Dropbox and mail ballots, that it becomes much easier to infuse ballots into the system.
	And that's one of our allegations, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	I understand what your offer of proof is about.
	Your Honor, the signatures contained in this proposed amount of are not voter signatures, and so I would withdraw my objection based on that.
	Very good.
	Then we can proceed.
	Well, 20 minutes.
	Mr. Blum, you can proceed with your demonstration.
	There's no jury to board a death here, people.
	It's just the judge, and the judge is paying attention.
	And I don't agree that the lawyer is doing a bad job.
	I think Carrie Lake's lawyer is doing a good job.
	Yeah, I mean, he has a different style than the judge probably prefers.
	EPM, not the demonstrative exhibit.
	Oh, no objection style.
	I didn't think so.
	Thank you.
	60s admitted.
	All right, and so your familiarity with EPM came from you reading it and talking to other people, correct?
	Yeah, I mean, the extensive research we did, yes.
	All right, and the EPM has guidelines.
	I'm sorry.
	I think I misspoke, didn't I?
	They're not guidelines?
	I believe they're requirements.
	It says that the recorder shall develop and implement the secure ballot retrieval and chain of custody process.
	Okay.
	So the county recorder or officer in charge of elections shall develop and implement secure ballot retrieval and chain of custody procedures.
	Yes.
	There's eight guidelines.
	This slide only has a couple of them on there, but the requirements are...
	Things like, you know, two couriers of differing parties, date and time of arrival at the dropbox, date and time of departure from the dropbox, and the date and time to arrive at the county.
	But most importantly, it requires that when that transport container is opened.
	That the number of ballots inside that container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form.
	And, of course, these retrieval forms are specific to one specific dropbox, so it's a one-to-one correspondence.
	Okay, so based on the law then, if I were to go to what's designated as Dropbox P57...
	And retrieve the ballots from there, I would create a chain of custody record that identifies the two people who went to get the ballots.
	It identifies the time they went there.
	And more importantly, it identifies the number of ballots contained within that box.
	Well, to be clear, the...
	The form is called the Early Voting Ballot Transport Statement.
	And the ballots are not counted at the time of retrieval.
	Instead, what happens is those couriers, they go out to the dropbox, they open the dropbox, they retrieve all of the ballots, they put them inside again.
	I'm going to tell you how Maricopa County does it.
	It's not necessarily how all of the counties do, but specifically in Maricopa County, the two couriers put the ballots in the box, they close the transport container, they zip tie it with security seals, and they document the fact that it was the two of them, the location, the time, etc., as I already mentioned.
	Yeah, I don't know what causes these glitches.
	It's not a mic issue.
	It's a pretty secure process when that is done?
	Yeah, I mean, that's the process and that's compliant with the law in Arizona.
	So.
	Mm hmm.
	And when the recorder or the recorder's designee...
	Opens up that container, that at that point, when the container is open, the recorder must count those ballots and record the precise number of ballots inside the container on that retrieval form.
	And again, the retrieval form is required in EPM.
	Okay.
	And really quickly, sort of interrupt your PowerPoint time to time, because I think you said EVBTS.
	Yes.
	Early vote ballot transport statement?
	Right.
	I actually have that on one of the slides so that you can see it.
	Understood.
	But I want the court to be able to see a standalone of that document and then we'll turn back to your slide.
	Is that fair?
	Understood.
	Sure.
	Can you pull up exhibit?
	The alternative to right side feed is...
	Another feed where the audio is not good.
	I want to look up Kerry Lake.
	I'm going to see if we can find a better audio.
	Thank you.
	Oh, this one's good.
	All right.
	Can you see the document that is currently on the screen?
	Yes.
	And that's an early voting ballot transportsman, correct?
	Correct.
	It's the retrieval form used in Maricopa.
	Does that look like it's completely filled out?
	Yeah, it looks great.
	It has all of the required fields.
	If I was doing an audit of that, I would say that is a perfect score.
	So you'd say perfect score for this one, Bates number 00991.
	Witnesses and lawyers and judges.
	Are you happy with that?
	Yeah.
	It's to criticize, are you?
	I'm not here to criticize at all.
	I just want to sort of shed some light on the vulnerabilities in the system in the hopes that they'll be fixed.
	In response to my client's FOIA request, or I keep saying FOIA, I apologize, Public Records Act request, how many of these specific documents did you get?
	I apologize.
	The precise count has escaped me, but I will tell you that they said that they produced all of the documents that they had.
	We specifically asked for these documents as well as a bunch of others, but they said that they provided all of the early voting ballot transport statements that they had for the entire election, and we had them for every day that drop boxes were open.
	So we, you know, we compared that to the list of locations when they were open, and we did have these transport statements for each and every day that they were open, with the exception of Election Day.
	There were no early voting ballot transport statements provided for Election Day.
	So she's the key witness to say they don't have it.
	I can produce it if they do have it.
	Produce it in this hearing if they have it.
	We're going to try this one here.
	No, I think that they actually, compared to previous elections, they did a really, you know, significantly better job with the documents this time around.
	But again, there were no documents produced for Election Day, which amounted to a significant number of dropbox ballots.
	Right, and so let's go back a little bit to talk a little bit more about your history as we sort of look through this.
	But what did you find when you did the 2020 election?
	You looked at all the documents they had for chamber custody, correct?
	Yeah, so we made a couple of observations.
	The first one was that there were a significant number of these early voting ballot transport statements that were not properly completed.
	Specifically, I would say the biggest issue was that there were quite a few of them that did not...
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Is this testimony about 2020 relevant?
	Yes, she is.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	It's just relevant to my requirements.
	I'm sorry, my witness is history.
	I think we're going to go back to the other one.
	Yeah, this is not good.
	Okay, let's just...
	Which one am I listening to here?
	Right now you're on ABC.
	Okay, but that count was dismissed.
	The process changes that could have been done either by the Arizona House, Senate...
	Yeah, that's not the right one.
	So, I understand.
	I'm not going to debate with you.
	Understood.
	Your Honor, I won't go there, but...
	But you are now.
	No, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything.
	If we get the end of our presentation of evidence and...
	Defendants stand up here and raise the latches' allegation.
	They won't be doing that because the motion ruled on that.
	There was the latches' argument that was upheld with regard to the 2020 election and the other part of the case.
	Okay, we're going to go back to this one.
	Sorry, the audio is just much better here.
	Six-second ad, people.
	Calm down.
	Don't worry.
	Three, two, one.
	It's good and it's missed.
	So, I understand.
	I'm not going to debate with you endlessly.
	Understood.
	And, Your Honor, I won't go there, but...
	But you are now.
	No, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything.
	If we get the end of our presentation of evidence and defendants stand up here and raise the latches allegation...
	They won't be doing that because the motion ruled on that.
	There was the latches...
	Argument that was upheld with regard to the 2020 election and the other part of the case.
	Okay.
	So today we're talking about, hopefully, she's shedding light.
	And her statement, shedding light on vulnerabilities to be fixed, is exactly what was dismissed.
	I'm looking at today what happened in the 2020 election and understanding that.
	And to that end, I've allowed this presentation.
	And so far, even though she said that...
	Explaining how the process works, and that's fine.
	But going into the 2020, we're out of that.
	Understood, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Can we change the slide?
	Thank you very much.
	Can you please explain to the court what this all means?
	Yeah, so this is a diagram of Maricopa County.
	Ballot chain of custody from the voter to tabulation.
	And so what you notice is if you vote on Election Day, you put your ballot in the tabulator.
	But if you vote early, in person in Maricopa, or if you vote by mail, there are several transfers of the ballot, and therefore requirements for chain of custody.
	And what's interesting or unique about Maricopa County is, to my knowledge, they are one of the only counties in the country that outsources the intake or the receipt of their ballots to a third-party organization.
	For example, we talked about the EPM and the requirement for chain of custody from the dropbox to the county.
	In most counties, that's the end of the road.
	You know, you retrieve the ballot from the dropbox, you transport it securely to the county, and it's tabulated there.
	That's not the case in Maricopa County.
	In Maricopa County, they then have to, after they've received it in the county and processed it according to the Arizona law, Then they must again maintain secure chain of custody as they transfer it from Maricopa County to Runbeck and then again when it comes back the other way.
	Thank you very much.
	And how many steps are there?
	If you vote, let's say you get a you either I guess you get a vote by mail.
	Or you could go into a vote center and get a ballot.
	Right.
	So on the next slide, I kind of just point out the fact that a dropbox in Maricopa County does not just contain mail ballots, right?
	So mail ballots that are, you know, sent to the voter and in the mail through the U.S. Postal Service.
	You can go.
	It was the next slide.
	I'm last done asking you questions.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought you were asking me about the different ways that I'm sorry.
	All right.
	Why is it the chain of custody when all of these transfers takes place is so important?
	Well, I mean, chain of custody, first of all, it's the law.
	And secondly, it's what allows sort of the security of the ballot, right?
	If you have 10 ballots and you know you have 10 ballots and they're transferred to the next location and there's still 10 ballots, then, you know, you feel like that's a pretty good secure chain.
	But if, you know, if there are ballots added or subtracted, you become aware of that if you are properly managing chain of custody.
	So what you're saying that at each of these different points in this process where a transfer is made, there are vulnerabilities in the system that could either induce or reduce the number of ballots?
	Well, I mean, I think the reason that you maintain chain of custody, the reason that it's part of business, it's part of elections, is because if...
	Failure to maintain chain of custody presents a situation where ballots could be added, but ballots could also be removed.
	And so that's why this whole chain of custody is important enough to have its own laws written about it.
	And can you pull up exhibit words?
	I don't like the fact that she's just a lay person.
	Yeah, I mean, I love the fact that lay people are involved in the process, but I would have used her as a support witness.
	I mean, not a witness, but a forensic support for someone with, you know, bow tie, whatever.
	Looks like what the judge expects an expert to look like.
	Okay, here's how this process works.
	Here's how we go.
	This is what he's done.
	Boom.
	And ideally, you get someone that's not even overly political.
	We can see the screen, Ms. Honey.
	And why is that important?
	Is that the chart you made?
	IRS does this all the time.
	They use professional witnesses that they disguise as IRS.
	I'll be right back in a second.
	Objection, Your Honor Foundation.
	102.
	You got me confused.
	You said two.
	Did I say two?
	Yeah.
	I apologize.
	Your Honor, it's 102.
	That's why I had this look on my face.
	I'm sorry.
	102?
	102, Your Honor.
	Is there an objection?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	This was offered as a demonstrative, and we're fine with that.
	But if it's going to be offered as an exhibit, it lacks foundation and no authentication.
	Well, okay.
	Wait, wait.
	Let me roll.
	I think that that's what the witness has done, is she's testified as to her understanding, and that's what this represents, her understanding of the system as the laws.
	And your objection next might be?
	My objection is I'd like to know where she got it, who created it.
	Did you make this chart, diagram, whatever you want to call it, Ms. Honey?
	I made it in PowerPoint.
	And did you make this based upon your...
	Thank you, Honor.
	Based on that, no objection.
	Great.
	102 is admitted.
	Thank you.
	They're going to have fun cross-examining.
	All right.
	Can we go back to the slide and move on to the next one?
	Which is...
	Self-taught election experts.
	I'm sorry, the power.
	I'm sorry.
	All right.
	Can you tell us what this slide shows, Ms. Honey?
	Yeah, so this slide shows that in a lot of counties, a dropbox is only for a place for people, an alternative to returning their mail ballot by mail.
	But in Maricopa County, the dropboxes are, in fact, a repository for a ballot that's mailed to a voter that they choose not to return by postal service.
	But it's also where people who vote early in person, who go into a vote center, show their ID.
	They get their ballot printed, they vote, put it in an envelope, and they sign the envelope, and they drop that ballot envelope into a Dropbox.
	So when we talk about Dropbox ballot retrieval for early voting, it includes early in-person and mail ballots that are deposited in a Dropbox as well.
	So it's those two different types of Dropbox ballots.
	Okay.
	And so I believe you had testified previously that you have reviewed all of the early ballot PBBTSs.
	And it's my understanding you've raised Maricopa County for having improved their documents and actually followed their procedure?
	Yes, on the documents that were completed.
	But again, there's the absence of...
	Of documents for Election Day ballots, which again is a significant number.
	Okay.
	Well, your FOIA request, well, my client's FOIA request requested all the chain of custody documents through Maricopa County on Election Day, correct?
	Correct.
	Have they provided any to you?
	Yes, they actually provided all of the documents that we requested with the exception of the Maricopa County Delivery Receipt form.
	Okay.
	The Maricopa County Delivery Receipt Form.
	Can you please tell the court what that is?
	So, the Maricopa County Delivery Receipt, as I mentioned in that previous sort of thing, if you, I think, if you can go to the one that actually has it on there, it is the document, the chain of custody document that is created at Maricopa County.
	To record the precise number.
	That's not this slide.
	If you go to like two more.
	The precise, that's the one.
	Perfect.
	Thank you.
	Oops.
	Back one.
	There you go.
	Perfect.
	It's in this diagram here.
	It's the number two, right?
	So when the drop boxes, when the ballots are retrieved from the drop box, the early voting ballot transport statement is used to document the chain of custody from the drop of ballots inside that transport container.
	And they document, they record that precise count of ballots on the early voting ballot of ballots inside that transport container.
	And they document, they record that precise count of ballots on the early voting ballot transport statement.
	From there, again, this is unique to Maricopa County, Maricopa County election officials then create this delivery receipt form, which is like a half sheet, and that has on it the precise count of the ballots that they are then loading on a truck and transferring to Runbeck.
	The larger thing there, the thing that has the number three on it, is a document that's created at Runbeck, basically just saying, hey, this is how many ballots were dropped off.
	So, and to answer your question, what we did not receive is the number two, the delivery receipts.
	I couldn't hear you because you turned away.
	I'm sorry, you're on 67. Yeah, she's the one who made, oh, let me get my leg down, I'm stretching my legs.
	She made the FOIA request.
	She's a citizen, a layperson.
	They're going to torture on her understanding of the law, legal training, expertise in cross.
	Much better witnesses thus far have been the experts.
	All right, Miss Honey, you were talking about the early voting ballot.
	Is this it?
	I mean, that's one of them.
	This one is from ASU West from October 25th.
	Okay, by one of them, you mean there were many of these?
	Yes, so there's one of these forms for each day that a dropbox is open.
	And so if there are 50 dropboxes open on a particular day, there are 50 of these forms created because there are 50 retrievals of ballots.
	And you reviewed all of these?
	We did.
	And I already moved this one into evidence.
	I don't have that you did.
	I believe I did.
	Move it 67 into evidence, Your Honor.
	No objection, Your Honor.
	67 is admitted.
	Do you have any problem with any of these statements for the early voting period?
	No.
	No.
	You've reviewed them all.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think they, like I said, they did a much, much better job.
	Right.
	So could you actually go through all of these and up and figure out exactly how many ballots Maricopa County retrieved from drop boxes?
	I think, like I said, they did a much better job.
	So could you actually go through all of these and figure out exactly how many ballots Maricopa County retrieved from drop boxes up until the day of the action?
	Exactly, yes.
	And you can do that?
	Yes.
	Is that what you're supposed to be able to do?
	Well, I mean, on a daily basis, yeah.
	I mean, you have to do it for each and every retrieval, according to the law.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	And so...
	Transport receipt again.
	What is that?
	So the delivery receipt is again that half sheet that I had on the display there which is created at Maricopa County at MEC Tech that accompanies the ballots as they travel from Maricopa County to Runbeck so that when they arrive at Runbeck, Runbeck knows precisely how many ballots are on that shipment.
	Do you have all of Maricopa County delivery receipt documents?
	We do not have any.
	We requested them, but they said they had misplaced them.
	And those are the ones that were for election day, correct?
	Well, actually, we didn't get a single one of those for the entire election.
	It is the testimony in the declaration of Runbeck employees that no such documents existed for.
	Election Day.
	For Election Day?
	Right.
	What about prior to the election?
	Yeah, so this form was actually created for all of the days prior to Election Day.
	I'm sorry, but my question was specifically related to Election Day.
	There were none.
	Well, we did not receive any.
	They said they misplaced them, and the Runbeck employees said none existed.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Have you been trying to get the records?
	We have.
	On behalf of Carrie Leak, some of the documents they provided to us electronically and others they said were in binders and we had to go and copy them ourselves.
	So we had a couple of copying of the records.
	Have you met Betty?
	I have not met Betty.
	Then I got a correct...
	Copying of the records.
	Have you met Betty?
	I have not met Betty.
	Then I got a correct misrepresentation to the court, Your Honor.
	I believe that my witness had.
	I apologize, and I correct that.
	Are you familiar with Betty's voicemail?
	Well, I called Betty a couple of times to try to get the records, but when they were there actually scanning the records, she exchanged business cards with Michelle, who was one of the representatives.
	Have you spoken with Betty?
	No.
	She's not responded to my email.
	Have you been able to get a hold of her?
	No.
	And I think that's a good question.
	And can we go to the next side, please?
	What is this document again?
	So this document is created at RunMEC, and this records the total count of the ballots that are received from the MECTech delivery truck.
	And so break this down into a couple of different ways.
	You know, the post office inbound is separated because, of course, those are slightly different ballots, and we're not really talking about those today.
	But the regular MOB is the mail ballots, right?
	So that would be the green envelopes.
	And then you'll see down at the bottom, the CTR, that's the vote center ballots.
	Those are the white envelopes for early in-person voting.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And what do these documents really tell you?
	So these documents record the number of ballots that are received at Ronbeck.
	So again, this is created at Ronbeck.
	And you'll see like in the line here, this document is dated 11-6.
	And it is the precise number of pieces of regular MOB and the precise number of pieces of the CTR.
	And that's because they copy this information from the delivery.
	Receipt form, that half sheet that's generated at MEC, and then this form accompanies it, and again, they keep a copy of it, and the other copy goes back with the driver to Maricopa County to document that, in fact, he did take the ballots as he was supposed to, delivered them to the possession of Runbeck, and completes that chain of custody.
	Okay, so these then are created by Runbeck when Naricopa County officials drop ballots off at their third party.
	Correct.
	It's the driver, so it's not like actually the recorder or anybody doing that delivery.
	Understood.
	And so Runbeck employs, they simply estimate the number of ballots?
	No, just to make mention.
	For the post office inbound, what happens is the driver, if they're, you know, stops.
	Sometimes he makes a special delivery, but sometimes he also stops on the way.
	So he'll go to the U.S. Postal Facility.
	For the ballots to Maricopa County, the driver goes to the facility in Phoenix, and then he loads the trays of mail ballots onto the truck.
	And then that is taken to Runbeck.
	And for those ballots, they...
	Count the number of trays, number of postal trays, and they asked that.
	There is a receipt that accompanies the post office ballots, but Maricopa County does not use that to record the precise number.
	However, they started preserving that at Runbeck.
	Okay, so Runbeck has started preserving documents obtained from the United States Postal Service.
	How many ballots the U.S. Postal Service was transferring to Maricopa County's care and control?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Is that your understanding?
	Hold on, there's an objection.
	The witness said the post office provides estimates, not counts of the number of ballot packages.
	Shaking her head no, Your Honor, that that's not what she said.
	Well.
	Mm hmm.
	That's fine.
	I'll ask the question another way.
	Thank you.
	Based upon your knowledge, training, experience with respect to Maricopa County chain of custody and election-related mail ballots, do you know if the Postal Service provides receipts showing the exact number of mail-in ballots that the United States Postal Service is transferring to Maricopa County?
	Right.
	Yes.
	The answer to that is, it is my understanding that they do.
	They tuck them into trays.
	So it's, again, my understanding that they're difficult to find.
	But that's how they base how much they're going to charge.
	That's like how they bill for the postage.
	So that's how they...
	...seat, or at least the Maricopa County driver.
	It's a receipt from the Postal Service that is essentially how many pieces of mail ballots were delivered to Maricopa County drivers, correct?
	That is my understanding.
	Does the county maintain those documents?
	So to my knowledge, they didn't turn any over to us, so let me just start with that.
	We didn't receive any in response to our request for those public records, but it's also my understanding that the Runbeck employees Attempted to return them to Maricopa County, and they said they didn't need them.
	Okay.
	And so, is there any way to tell, other than this inbound receipt given by Runway, exactly how many ballots left Maricopa County, were picked up at the post office, and actually delivered a runback?
	Well, on this form here on 11-6, you can see that they have a precise count.
	But unfortunately, on Election Day, because we're not using the other chain of custody documents that we described, this was the one and only form that was used into, again, the records requests that were produced for us.
	And based on the...
	Runbeck employees who described receiving these trucks coming with no corresponding documentation.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Ms. Honey.
	And so I would like to exhibit...
	It's definitely Nick Nolte and Gérard Depardieu.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	Okay, missed.
	No.
	No.
	Okay.
	Oh, man.
	This is a little...
	Thank you.
	If you look at the screen, Miss Honey...
	Oh, now the audio's out?
	These look like...
	The video?
	Audit challenges and receipts?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'd move to admit Exhibit 66 into the record, Your Honor.
	No objection.
	66 is admitted.
	Thank you.
	Okay, go back to that.
	These look like the Maricopa Audit Challenges receipts?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'd move to admit Exhibit 66 into the record, Your Honor.
	Okay, so this is a loopback again.
	No objection.
	A lot of glitches in the matrix, people.
	Thank you.
	Okay, go back to that.
	Look here, Miss Honey.
	Is this Exhibit 66?
	Okay.
	Yeah, I want to hear what they're saying on that hot mic.
	It's almost catching their audio.
	Miss Honey.
	How many ballots the Maricopa County claim they received on Election Day that were not tabulated?
	So...
	On the morning after the election, they reported that there had been 275,000.
	I think that Stephen Richer said approximately 275,000 dropbox ballots had been dropped off on election day.
	Did that number change?
	That number did change.
	What's the number now?
	I believe that that...
	The number went from the 275 on the 9th.
	They also had a press conference, during which the press at the conference recorder, Richard, also talked about what an extraordinary number the 275 was.
	Miss Honey, that was not my question.
	My question was, what is the number now?
	I believe they ultimately said it was 292,000 that had been dropped off at Dropboxes.
	As you sit here today, How many of those have legal chain of custody?
	Based on the documents provided, none.
	Objection calls for conclusion.
	He can reformulate that.
	You're asking her according to her understanding from what she's experienced and observed.
	What's her number?
	Yes, you're right.
	If you can answer it, go ahead and answer it.
	Yeah, so we reviewed all of the documents provided by Maricopa County in response to our request, and the answer is that none of the documents...
	No.
	So...
	None.
	You had the opportunity to talk to somebody following this.
	I did.
	And if you had an opportunity to read that...
	That Runbeck employees declaration?
	I did.
	All right.
	And so I would like to...
	Let's see here.
	I'm going to call it now.
	I think she's going to come apart in cross-examination.
	I think...
	Oh, it's not going to go well.
	She can answer questions that she's prepped to ask, but I'm curious to see.
	While he's pulling this up, Your Honor, may I ask the court a quick procedural question?
	Go ahead.
	When we began this morning, Your Honor noted that it would be undoubtedly difficult to get this many witnesses through, so it said it was going to admit the declarations, with the exception of Kurt Olsen's, that were attached to the complaint, Your Honor.
	I'll say that.
	I'm sorry.
	I misunderstood.
	I know what I said, but I know where you're going.
	You want to admit those now?
	I would like to, yes, Your Honor, admit Leslie White and...
	Are we sure the other Betty wasn't Betty White?
	Denise Marie and Leslie White.
	And those are listed as Denise Marie is Exit 46, Leslie White is Exit 47. I just heard the lawyers for the defense say something about an objection.
	Yes, Mr. Liddy.
	Objection hearsay, Your Honor.
	Very well.
	Objections were preserved.
	These are two of the ones that I had listed specifically this morning and told you that I needed the numbers.
	Now I have the numbers for at least two of these.
	Okay, so your objections are all preserved.
	All three defendants have joined.
	They were in writing under the Rule 807 notice.
	And so over your objection, I'm going to admit 46 and 47. Thank you, Your Honor.
	Ms. Honey, the Runbeck employee, Denise, did she tell you about any problems at Runbeck with respect to change testing?
	Yes, she expressed her concern over the fact that the procedure that had been well-established throughout the election was not used for the large number of Election Day dropbox ballots that were received.
	Your Honor, I'm sorry.
	I want to object and move to strike everything that was just said there.
	While the declaration was admitted, now we have this witness testifying about separate hearsay statements made by this Denise individual who allegedly worked at Renzak.
	This seems to me to be a separate issue from the admission of the declaration itself, and I just want to clarify that the hearsay objection extends to any hearsay testimony that this witness will offer in addition to what may or may not be in the declaration.
	Your Honor, the county joins that objection.
	Which exhibit was in it?
	This is Denise Marie 46. And Your Honor, I'm not asking any questions outside the scope of this declaration.
	Your Honor, the declaration is in evidence.
	It's in evidence now over our objection.
	This witness shouldn't be that said them herself in the declaration.
	The court can consider Ms. Marie's declaration, giving it whatever way it deems fit, but to have this witness repeat what is already hearsay again, I think is inappropriate.
	Okay.
	That said them herself in the declaration.
	The court can consider Ms. Marie's declaration, giving it whatever way it deems fit, but to have this witness repeat what is already hearsay again, I think is inappropriate.
	Okay.
	We're not going to go back and forth.
	I believe, as I told Mr. Olson earlier, the court does not pronounce somebody an expert.
	But if they're testifying and they have information, text, experience, or education beyond that of the trier of fact, it's instructive or informative.
	And this witness, I find, meets that.
	If she's relying upon this, what she has just said, to formulate her opinions, let her do that.
	I understand the objection is that it's hearsay, but that's something that you can cross-examine, for instance.
	If that's incorrect, then you're...
	I'm not going to tell you how to cross-examine.
	You already understand all of that.
	So, Mr. President, proceed, please.
	Okay, so lack of chain of custody was one of her concerns.
	When the ballots were received back from the drop boxes.
	And her concern was that specifically the...
	The seals were being removed when the audio ballots were received back from the drop boxes.
	And her concern was that specifically the seals were being removed from the transport containers.
	And the ballots inside were not counted.
	She, you know, that was a requirement as she understood it.
	And the fact that they were just taking those ballots out of the transport containers without counting them was her primary concern.
	And then, okay, so we have two different people you have spoken to working in two different places, correct?
	Correct.
	One's here at Runbeck, the third-party vendor.
	And one's here at MCTEC, right?
	MCTEC?
	All right.
	And both of them are both telling you that there is no chain of custody on Election Day for ballots being transported from MCTEC to Runback.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	They weren't following the legal requirements for chain of custody.
	So there were seals on the containers when they transported them, but the specific issues were that they were just cutting them open, taking the ballots out, putting them in trays without regard to how many, and there was no documentation.
	There were handbags and purses where they were processing the ballots.
	That was a con...
	All right.
	With respect to...
	With respect to...
	Sorry, I just lost my chance of thought.
	With respect to Denise White, Denise White, did she have other concerns with you regarding potential vulnerabilities with our election system in Maricopa County?
	Yeah, so two issues, right?
	So the first one was that the trucks were coming with ballots, that there was no associated count, right?
	So that was number one.
	They just didn't know how many they should have had.
	So she was concerned about that.
	But then after the election, on the evening of November 9th, right?
	So November 8th is election day.
	November 9th in the evening, she was called by her supervisor.
	And asked to go down to the system and actually pool the total number of ballot packets that had gone through the system to provide a count to Maricopa County.
	Why?
	Well, I don't know.
	I'll withdraw the question.
	Improper.
	Okay.
	And that is to go find what the numbers are to report those to Maricopa County because they don't know.
	Objection, Your Honor, again.
	Foundation.
	Is that what she told you?
	County joins.
	Great.
	What I told you before, I'm going to assume all the defendants joined the other objections that you've made, okay?
	And your objection is speculation?
	Your Honor, I guess foundation and speculation, and I just want to make clear that we have a continuing objection to any of these.
	Continued hearsay conversations that this witness is laying.
	So noted.
	I'm almost done, Your Honor.
	Pardon me?
	I'm almost done.
	That doesn't take care of this question.
	I was going to say, Your Honor, that the question was, what did she say and then why?
	And now we're getting into this witness's motivations, which is now beyond hearsay and pure speculation and lax foundation.
	My understanding was it was calling for this witness to speculate about why Maricopa County did something.
	And so, rephrase the question.
	Did this witness tell you that she was concerned about how Maricopa County was conducting operations with respect to drop box ballots?
	Yes.
	Did this witness, Denise, did she also tell you about possible vulnerabilities where people can inject ballots into this system?
	Possible vulnerabilities.
	She said that run-back employees were permitted, almost like it was a perk of employment, to bring their ballots from home.
	So their ballots from home, their family members' ballots, bring them from home and add them to the inbound scans.
	Is that consistent with Arizona law?
	No.
	You're asking for her understanding, correct?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Your understanding, ma 'am, if you can answer it based on that?
	It is my understanding that ballots must be returned to an authorized drop-off location.
	Maricopa County publishes a list of those authorized drop-off locations, and Runbeck Elections is not one of those.
	Yeah, her just saying it, I don't know who they have to prove it.
	Maybe it might have happened.
	Okay.
	And these are tweets by Maricopa County Elections Department, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	I'd move to admit these are, Your Honor, Exhibit 63. Mr. Blem, can you bring this back up on the screen?
	I want to be sure.
	Oh, I apologize.
	I didn't take it off.
	I think we need to go back.
	I think we need to go back.
	Give the defendants a moment to look at them.
	Any objection?
	Mr. Blum, I'm sorry, I can't read it.
	You're adverring that that's an actual tweet from Stephen Richards.
	I didn't have my witness read it.
	I'm just a little bit 11. What do those pictures have to do with the tweets?
	No objection.
	Very well, that was 63 that would be admitted.
	Are you familiar?
	Your Honor, hold on.
	We believe it's 70, Your Honor.
	That's 63. That's not Stephen Richard.
	Did I say that was Stephen Richard?
	70?
	I'm looking at 63. I pull them up as you discuss them.
	Yes, 70 is Stephen Richards' quote.
	Which one are we moving, Mr. Blum?
	I am...
	You know, I think I might have written these down backwards, Your Honor.
	Our staff is working hard to prepare the early ballots.
	Before you're going to get to 63. I think that you looked at 63, defendants, correct?
	Did you have any objection to 63?
	Your Honor, I have not looked at 63, but I did look at 70, and we have no objection to 70. Oh, is this 63 right here?
	Okay.
	Just one moment.
	Thank you.
	No objection, Your Honor.
	Are you moving 63 and 70 into evidence, Mr. Planner?
	They're admitted.
	Thank you.
	Okay, and so this is a...
	Oh.
	Sixty...
	Sixty...
	They're just trying to get exhibits in as evidence.
	They have them filed as numbered, but they're not formally in as evidence until they ask for them to be admitted and the judge recognizes it.
	Are you familiar with the tweets that are up here from Stephen, Reporter Richard?
	Yes.
	And is this where he was saying there were $275,000?
	Yeah, this was a series of tweets, sort of...
	The day after the election, where he explains that they had processed all of the ballots and plans for them to run back.
	And again, it was 275,000 was the number.
	He says over 275, 275 plus.
	Obviously, it's a round number, right?
	It's 000.
	So, you know, and...
	You may.
	In this tweet...
	Mr. I'm sorry, Recorder Richard says, last night from midnight to 5 a.m., we sorted those 275 plus thousand documents for ballots so they could be scanned in and image captured at Runbeck.
	Correct.
	Signature capture.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Does that indicate that those ballots had already been sent to Runbeck at that time or some point after?
	There are no...
	Which ballots?
	Rephrase, please.
	I'm sorry.
	There are no...
	Which ballots?
	I'm rephrase, please.
	175.
	Mr. Mr. I'm sorry, rephrase the whole question for the witness, please.
	Okay.
	Do you have any evidence they counted these ballots before they put them in a truck, departed from the Maricopa County facility with ballots from Maricopa County residents and delivered them to a third party?
	Did they count them before they delivered them?
	No record that they counted any of them.
	Did Maricopa County, knowing we had these claims, come here with their exhibits saying, hey, look, no harm, no foul.
	Sorry we got them to you late.
	Yes or no?
	Hold on.
	David for closing.
	Sustained.
	Did you, Ms. Honey, have a chance to review the documents Maricopa County submitted?
	As exhibits before this court?
	Yes.
	Did they provide those missing documents?
	They did not.
	They provide any documents that will allow them or their witnesses to sit up here before this court and do the math.
	They should still have these records.
	Why can't they produce them?
	You can rephrase it by saying, to her knowledge.
	To her knowledge, Ms. Honey.
	The judge is fair in about how he processes the case.
	They may be able to put witnesses before this court and do the math based on their own disclosure.
	No, to my knowledge, no.
	And I will like to also expand that we looked at the chain of custody documents that they did use on Election Day, which are, those are called the precinct ballot reports.
	And the precinct ballot reports are really the chain of custody for those voted ballots that come from the vote center on Election Day.
	And it also includes, by the way, a count of the door three ballots.
	Those documents, which I have on one of these exhibits here.
	What just happened?
	Was there an objection?
	Objection.
	Your Honor, I want to move to strike everything that witness just said about the precinct-based ballots as being completely non-responsive to the question.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean, to strike, that's kind of ludicrous.
	That's usually a cross-examination thing.
	You say, you know, oh, he needs to re-ask another direct witness question.
	Well, to use an old adage, that's the road we're getting ready to hoe, Your Honor.
	So we'll just start from scratch and then we'll go down that road.
	And so I believe we pulled up what has been marked as Exhibit 65. What is that document, Ms. Honey?
	This is an example of a precinct ballot report.
	These are the documents, according to the Maricopa County Poll Worker Training and the Poll Worker Manual, these are the documents that are used when they close the polling places to provide chain of custody for the voted ballots that are voted on Election Day.
	In addition to that, the Poll Worker Training requires the poll workers to...
	Empty the drop boxes of all of the early voting ballots and place those in the container.
	And of course, there's no counting of those ballots.
	There's nowhere on this form to record a number is the point of this.
	Anywhere in this form can you find...
	This is as smooth as honey.
	Did you have a chance to review each and every one of these documents?
	People asked about this leave of court.
	I did.
	It's up to the judge.
	Some judges don't allow you to have what's called leave of court.
	You have to stay at the well when you ask questions.
	Did you see any documentation?
	In most courts, you have to ask permission.
	This judge just did it and some judges were laid back.
	Definitely not the number of ballots.
	The seal numbers that were put on those containers are on here.
	But there's no ballot counts.
	All right.
	And so if I look at the vote totals for tabulator 1, 494 in this example, and tabulator 2, 384 in that example.
	I mean, they can hammer away at it all they want.
	The problem is their documents don't exist to prove that they did what they're supposed to do for Chain of Custs.
	Correct.
	If they followed the procedure, the misread ballots, the 101, would have been transported separately in that blue tote as well.
	All right.
	If Recorder Richard hypothetically were to testify...
	That's true.
	If she's not married, her name is actually misunderstood.
	Would that be accurate?
	It's my understanding, according to the EPM, that it specifically makes the recorder or the recorder's Demi responsible for the secure retrieval of ballots, positive, and drop boxes.
	I love to pace.
	I've got to ask permission to Election Day.
	There is no exception to the requirements for Election Day.
	Because it throws judges off.
	Judges tend to be linear thinkers, not intuitive pattern thinkers.
	So they get thrown off by hand gestures.
	They get thrown off by anything.
	Exhibit number 65, I move it into evidence.
	Any objection?
	Let's see what 65 is.
	I do love the way this guy's introducing exhibits.
	Isn't it in reverse order?
	69. 68. You had an opportunity to review some of the recorder's emails.
	There you go.
	One, two, three.
	Yes.
	And I'm looking for them on my list right now.
	But.
	From our locals chat, they wonder whether she's dating Mr. Salty.
	They're on the PowerPoint?
	Oh, they're on the PowerPoint.
	Thank you, Ms. Honey.
	A probable reference to the one and only Salty Cracker, who is a happily married man.
	Mrs. Salty often comments on Twitter.
	I just don't want Ms. Honey to be duplicative for the court.
	But I do kind of want to, I think, record a Richard's email.
	Is exceptionally important.
	And I believe I moved this into evidence earlier, Your Honor.
	What is it?
	What number?
	Which email was it?
	Oh, the one about this you missed earlier on.
	These are 69, Your Honor.
	This morning, Your Honor.
	You knew in an election fornication case there would be an important exhibit number 69. I forget what Richard's email was.
	We went over it earlier this morning.
	You can tell he's a trial lawyer kind of guy because he does the...
	Very important exhibit.
	Very important.
	I gotta do this one for you, Joe.
	Very important.
	You know, he sets it up.
	Dramatizing it.
	Now, I can tell you, as a general rule, that's more of a jury thing that's appealing than a judge thing.
	Yes, honey.
	Overt appeals to emotion make judges be skeptical of you rather than the other way around.
	Aside from making guesses.
	Salty Cracker fans in the house.
	Did recorder Richard...
	Based on documents, we'll know exactly how many ballots Maricopa County had in his possession.
	Objection.
	So it calls for her speculation.
	Recorder Richard was on the stand this morning.
	He could have asked the recorder that.
	I believe it did, Your Honor.
	We'll know exactly how many ballots Maricopa County had in his possession.
	Objection.
	So it calls for her speculation and recorder Richard was on the stand this morning.
	He could have asked the recorder that.
	We're getting these weird repetitions.
	My question was related to based on county documents.
	Does Mr. Recorder Richard have any clue as to how many ballots he has aside from an estimate?
	Based on county records.
	And I make the same objection that it calls for speculation, Your Honors, to what, Recorder Richer?
	Right.
	How he understands county documents.
	Right.
	I believe the question can be phrased in terms of, does any of the documentation show or provide a method where someone, any county person would know?
	Does any of the documentation show that Recorder Richer had any idea how many ballots he had on Election Day other than, you know, Mira?
	Yes.
	No.
	The exhibit on the board.
	What does it say?
	It's an email from Stephen Richer.
	It looks like it's Thursday the 10th, so two days after the election, and he says he's unable to reconcile.
	Basically, there's a 15,000 difference somewhere.
	Okay.
	Unable to reconcile.
	The number he throws out is 15,000 though, right?
	I don't know where these come from.
	Is that any way to run an election, Ms. Honey?
	To the extent the editorial comment was embedded in that question, it should be stricken.
	We got a slight delay.
	That's part of the question.
	Your Honor, I can't even remember.
	I'm going to go check the Arizona food here.
	I can't either.
	It's been a long week.
	I don't even remember what it was, Your Honor.
	I'm not sure how I'm going to re-ask it.
	Go ahead.
	All right, Ms. Honey.
	Thank you.
	I don't have any further questions.
	Oh, really quickly before I stop.
	I want to move into Exhibit 69, Your Honor.
	Any objection to 69?
	Audio's not better on the Arizona feed.
	I think it was already admitted this morning, but I don't believe they have any other objection.
	You're correct.
	It was admitted this morning.
	Oh, okay.
	Very good.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Now I think the lawyer's going to come up and say they're taking a break or they want to take a break before continuing.
	What time is this supposed to end today?
	I'm assuming...
	Let's see.
	It started at what?
	11 a.m. Eastern?
	It started at 11 a.m. Eastern.
	9 a.m.
	Arizona time, I guess.
	So...
	If we go eight hours, it would be 7 p.m. Eastern.
	I might have to duck out for 30 to 45 minutes.
	Sorry.
	I think that we should be taking an afternoon break for the sake of my court reporter's carpal tunnel syndrome if we don't.
	That won't do anything for carpal tunnel syndrome.
	I would rather...
	Take the break now, then start in, and then take a break in 10 minutes.
	So let's recess.
	I'm not going to do the math.
	Until 3 o 'clock, we'll come back at 3 and resume with the cross-examination, okay?
	Off the record until then.
	Nine minutes?
	Yeah, basically.
	All right, now we can tinker.
	Hold on.
	Is this it?
	Which one?
	Where do I have this?
	I'm going to remove it just for a second because I don't want to have any audio issues.
	Okay.
	Oh, I got a headache already.
	This is long, long and...
	They're going to destroy...
	They could have presented her testimony, I think, in about half an hour.
	Yep.
	They said, how's the process?
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	What records did you request?
	I would have started with a FOIA request.
	Yep.
	Then explain, why did you request this?
	Why did you request this?
	Why did you request this?
	Why is it important what this is?
	Why is it important what this is?
	Did you get it?
	Have you reviewed the exhibit list?
	Is it there?
	And then I get finishing on Richard.
	That's a trial lawyer narrative bookmarking structure.
	You know, in this email, does he admit he doesn't have a clue where X number of ballots are?
	And when you reviewed the documents, Did they produce any documents to show you they had any clue how many ballots were, what happened to them, where they went, whether they were properly provided the custodial documentation or not?
	And just do a 30-40 minutes limit.
	And then they come up and cross-examine her, but they're the ones who have the docs that they're not producing.
	So it's like, what's the point?
	They get the attacker, critiquer, questioner.
	So what?
	Her credibility isn't an issue here.
	Not meaningfully.
	She requested these documents.
	They can't dispute that.
	They didn't produce the documents.
	They can't dispute that.
	They still don't have the documents.
	They can't dispute that.
	So what are they going to dispute?
	Really?
	I mean, they can take just little pot shots at her.
	Aren't you an election denier?
	You don't have any particular certification.
	You've never worked at all that kind of jazz.
	But what does that go to?
	What is it that you were required to believe her to believe?
	Nothing.
	Because the documents she requested?
	Yep.
	Are they required?
	That's outside of her expertise.
	So if they are required, that's a legal determination.
	And do they produce them?
	Nope.
	End of story.
	I tend to agree, which is why I'm not attacking her, period, but certainly not for no reason.
	What's going to happen in cross-examination, they might pull up some social media posts where she has exposed...
	There's sideshow stuff they can do.
	If I was them, maybe take a few shots, but...
	Credibility is not really an issue.
	Some of these lame excuses is they should be in a position.
	Right now, why don't they have the documents?
	If I'm the judge, that's what I'm concerned about.
	I think he'll go through leaps to explain why they didn't prove that that meant that the election was in doubt.
	But I think you will see, as one of our local commenters pointed out, you'll probably see the judge critique aspects of what happened here with Maricopa County while not giving the remedy that saw it.
	But this is the utility of these public trial proceedings.
	I mean, it's stunning.
	Why don't they have these records?
	These are basic records to make sure chain of custody of ballots is maintained on Election Day.
	Why don't they have them?
	Where are they?
	I mean, something went wrong.
	And we know they deliberately, based on the evidence produced today, the best, most persuasive, competent expert evidence today, that they deliberately contaminated the process.
	On Election Day and how they worked the printers to not function at multiple locations.
	We know that, at least based on credible evidence, was done.
	And now they don't have basic chain of custody records for how the ballots were handled on Election Day?
	How?
	Why?
	What's their excuse for this?
	I think I saw Laura Barris in the chat just say that Richard is today.
	Hold on.
	Richard B. is today.
	Whoa, that's going to be good.
	They're running low on time.
	I mean, they basically got two hours, I think, to wrap.
	But I think these are their two main pieces of evidence.
	The inferential evidence that ballot chain of custody didn't go correctly from the absence of documentation.
	That would certify that it did go correctly.
	And then secondly, that there was intentionality in the tabulator and printer system malfunctions.
	Now, I think they do have, if I were them, I would go now with some whistleblowers to talk about other things that they witnessed of intentional misconduct and other issues that fit within the ballot chain of custody issues.
	I think they have those, but I'm not certain.
	Oh, Robert, actually, you know what?
	Hold on.
	Why am I...
	I'm asymmetrical here.
	Before I forget now, because it's out, it has just dropped.
	It just dropped, people.
	Look, when I saw them tweeting, retweeting Trump's tweet from 2020, big protests on Capitol Hill will be wild.
	And I thought they were citing that to show how absurd the January 6th committee was, not in support of criminal insurrectionist talk.
	Well, I had a vision, and the vision was a shirt that says, we'll be wild.
	Now, there's this one, and some people might not want to wear a shirt with Trump's face on it, not for out of shame, but rather out of self-preservation.
	There's a version which nobody can take issue with.
	How do I find it here?
	There's a version that no one can take issue with.
	This just says, we'll be wild.
	You can get, we'll be wild.
	With a flag, and you can get, we'll be wild, with El Jefe.
	Because it's now, this is insurrectionist, anti-authority rhetoric, we'll be wild.
	Can you imagine, Trump says in two separate tweets, peacefully protest, stand on the side of the police, but they take a tweet in which he says, we'll be wild, as somehow evidence of insurrectionist encouragement of violent protest.
	Nuts.
	Someone's pointing out that maybe they have to wrap today because they have five and a half hours that includes their closing argument.
	So, assuming he's having closing argument at the very end, that would mean that they would want to, that their time-wise might need to wrap up earlier.
	So, it's not apparent that Maricopa has many competent witnesses.
	I mean, I'll be curious to see what their explanation is for the malfunction of the tabulators and printers.
	But they don't even have the exhibits that prove that, in fact, they maintained Janic custody.
	That they were legally, statutorily required.
	Well, that's what I didn't understand.
	They did not have a number when they left the drop-off spots before they got to run back.
	How do you lose that?
	How do you not even get that?
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's a basic process supposed to happen.
	Clearly, they weren't doing it.
	And, I mean, it appears it was very odd, the election day results.
	By almost everybody's expectations, both in terms of total vote, vote margin, and vote margin.
	And now we have an explanation as to how that happened.
	People deliberately created voter suppression and created the opportunity for the ballots to not be properly counted.
	Either ballots included that should not have been, double counted that should not have been.
	Or, as someone pointed out, the audit of 2020 on duplicate ballots apparently found up to 3% of ballots that were counted for Biden that are actually Trump ballots.
	And so there's some issue with duplication creating a heightened risk of error.
	But the fact that there's no ballot chain of custody documentation that's required, the fact that there was intentional malfunctioning that took place, is very damning.
	I mean, I don't expect this judge to do anything about it in terms of the new election because otherwise he would have allowed the signature match check to move forward.
	But it's why these cases are important to see.
	And you're seeing the arrogance and incompetence of the people who run our election.
	People think this is why they didn't want to have this debate to begin with.
	Let me see if this is Arizona.
	See, everybody's audio is better here.
	This is the audio on Arizona.
	Feed on YouTube.
	I hear that.
	This is not better, but it won't be looping.
	Do we prefer this to the glitches that we're having?
	I think I prefer the RSPN.
	That's the one Carrie Lake's campaign is pushing out.
	All right, well, let's use that one because the audio is not good consistently.
	So if I go here, this looks like RSP.
	They should be back in and starting again.
	Yeah, and the judge has been quite thorough.
	Yeah, you're a typical state court judge, very linear, very by the rules, by the book.
	So no surprise there.
	Yep.
	Okay, we're back.
	And now I'm going to maximize and then come over here.
	Okay.
	This is going to be it.
	Now, I might do something.
	Robert, if I duck out for, it might be 45 minutes or more, I'll be listening.
	But I might have to do something if I want to stay sane and married.
	We can leave it running, too, because even if I got to check out, I'll just leave it running and just mute myself.
	All right, we are back on the record in CV 2022-095-403.
	This is Lake v.
	Hobbs et al.
	Present are the parties of the representatives in council.
	We have Heather Honey on the stand remaining under oath.
	And we're ready to begin the cross-examination.
	You may proceed whenever you're ready.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Good afternoon, Ms. Honey.
	Why are we getting two?
	Thank you for being here today.
	I don't know.
	I know that all the parties appreciate your attendance.
	I just have a few questions for you.
	This isn't me.
	It's obvious to me that you've done a lot of work to try to understand elections.
	Hold on.
	Okay, I know that that's not, now you know that that's not me, so not us, not the link.
	That's not my computer.
	Hold on, let me just get back here.
	See if it's better.
	I would agree with that.
	And there are a lot of complexities to running an election.
	Do you agree with that?
	Now we're getting double.
	That's not going to work.
	Let's go back to Arizona.
	Maricopa, Lake, Arizona, live.
	Do we do this one?
	Let's try it out.
	You might ask why I would be...
	Jordan Peterson.
	Why would I be reading the history of the Bible?
	My name is Jordan.
	I've not gotten a tour, if that's what you mean.
	This will do, this will do.
	I haven't been there, but I haven't gotten a tour.
	Okay, all right.
	You left up the Bevis computer skills suck.
	I meant to respond to that.
	You testified that you didn't receive certain forms in response to your public record request, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And is it fair to say that...
	Because you didn't receive those forms, you're assuming that they do not exist?
	No, quite the contrary.
	I know they exist.
	They exist in more than one copy.
	I know that they exist at Runbeck because I've seen photographs of them.
	So I know they exist.
	And in fact, the email correspondence between the attorney for Ms. Lake and your office...
	Was that, hey, if you can't find yours, your copy, could you get the copy at Runbeck for us?
	Okay.
	So you know the forms exist, they just haven't been provided to you?
	They haven't been provided in about three weeks.
	Okay.
	And Ms. Honey, I will let you know that we believe you're being honest, that you don't believe you've received them.
	We take a different position.
	Do you think it's possible?
	That you were provided them and you simply missed them in the large stack of documents that you were offered.
	Oh, yeah.
	Try this one.
	Well, then why aren't they exhibits?
	Why aren't they exhibits?
	They should be exhibits for the state of Arizona.
	Have you ever observed the ballot pickup at the post office when the Maricopa County employees come, the Elections Department employees come and pick up the ballots to transport to run back?
	Have you ever been there to observe that?
	I'm sorry, when they pick up the ballots at the post office?
	At the post office.
	No, but I did actually speak to three people at the Phoenix Postal Facility.
	But you've never personally observed that?
	I have not personally observed that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Honey Bunny, reference to Pulp Fiction.
	I apologize for interrupting, but I believe we have the will to exclude from the courtroom any testifying non-expert witnesses, and I believe one of those witnesses just entered.
	Mr. Zomberg, please.
	Why do government lawyers look so weird?
	They always look weird.
	They look like the person who catfished you on an online dating service.
	I believe the attention was brought to opposing counsel and thought it was Mr. Barris.
	Richard Barris' name makes a cameo in the Arizona Cary Lake trial.
	At least his name.
	He'll actually be testifying in a bit.
	So...
	I don't believe it was intentional.
	I believe you're like me.
	You're intent and focused on what's in front of you.
	So I'm not casting any aspersions.
	Let's all be more stupid.
	I guess that's the best thing.
	Thank you for pointing it out.
	Thank you, Robert.
	Go ahead and proceed.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Now, Ms. Honey, I believe you testified earlier, correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe you testified earlier that the United States Postal Service provides an exact count of the ballots that are picked up by the Elections Department staff.
	Was that your testimony?
	So, I think what I said was that in the trays, they include a receipt, which basically is like a bill.
	To the locals chat question, yes, Barris is expecting to testify today.
	On that form, and it's actually tucked into the trays.
	I have some photographs of that as well.
	Okay, and you said they put it in.
	You mean United States Postal Service employees?
	That is my understanding.
	Prepare the receipt and put it in.
	Okay, and...
	Is it your understanding that that receipt includes an exact number of ballots for that tray?
	I don't believe it's for the tray.
	I think it's for the entire, like, pickup.
	For the entire pickup.
	Right.
	However many trays are included.
	It's not a one-for-one, like, this is how many are in this tray.
	I think it's the whole...
	That's my understanding.
	Would it surprise you to learn that the United States Postal Service actually...
	Weighs the trays and makes an estimated determination based on the weight of the tray?
	Well, obviously, that's a great way to do it.
	Weight counting is a very effective method of counting papers.
	Okay, thank you.
	I want to talk with you for just a minute about the woman who I believe is identified as Denise Marie.
	Do you know who I'm speaking about?
	I do.
	Okay.
	I believe you testified that she was an employee at Runbeck.
	Is that right?
	She still is an employee at Runbeck.
	Okay.
	Do you know how long she's been employed there?
	I think probably close to a year, but you'd have to look at her declaration just to be certain.
	I'm not 100% sure.
	Okay.
	Do you know what her position is?
	I know what her position is.
	well no All right.
	I want to talk with you about Leslie White.
	And again, when I say Leslie White, you know to whom I'm referring.
	I do.
	Okay.
	I believe you testified that she was an observer at McTec.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	Do you know whether she was a first-time observer, whether she was a repeat observer, what her background is with regard to the observation process?
	I believe she said that that was the first time that she had been credentialed to observe that particular process.
	As a witness, she testifies very effectively.
	She's smooth, answers the question correctly, is engaging, not overly defensive, not emotionally reactionary, has done very well on all these accounts.
	But your belief is she was a first-time observer?
	I believe that was the first time she observed that process, if that's what you're asking.
	I'm sorry.
	No, no, no.
	That's fine.
	Did she, by any chance, mention to you that from her assigned location where she was at, she did not have a clear view of the activities on the truck or on the dock?
	I mean, I see why they used her.
	Do you believe me when I say that Leslie White did not actually say in her declaration that she was worried that ballots were not being counted?
	That she didn't actually say that?
	I'm worried ballots are not being counted?
	Are you asking if those were her words specifically?
	I'm going to object, Your Honor.
	The declaration speaks for itself.
	You can ask the question related to the statement, but I thought there was testimony as well about conversations.
	Would you agree with me that Ms. White, Leslie White, never actually said in her declaration order you?
	That she was worried that ballots were not being counted.
	She most certainly said to me that she saw the seals being removed, the transport containers being opened, and that there was absolutely, that's in her word, absolutely no counting of the ballots.
	They were simply...
	Picking them up out of the transport container and putting them into trays and then putting those trays onto like what she was calling a cage or a cart and that they were just moving these through.
	She was concerned about that.
	So in her declaration she doesn't say that.
	She says, and I'm wondering if she said any of this to you, she was concerned with the disorganized way the ballots were being handled.
	She said, I did not see any person count any ballots or record any information.
	I didn't see it.
	But she didn't say it didn't happen.
	When she spoke with you, did she talk about what she saw, what she observed, or was she making statements beyond that?
	So I think you're mischaracterizing what she said, but if you have a copy of her statement, I'd be happy to point out what I'm talking about.
	It's all right.
	We'll move on.
	Yeah, yeah.
	That was a lame set of questions.
	I want to talk about...
	I want to come back to...
	You just backed out earlier.
	That was an argument for the judge.
	I believe you testified.
	She told you that Runback had...
	Well, Runback allowed or maybe...
	Somebody in the chat remind me who was the lawyer that was...
	The name of the lawyer that was with finger in the written house case.
	Do you remember talking about that?
	That lawyer reminds me of that other...
	Denise was concerned about that, correct?
	Denise was concerned that this was basically announced as though it was a perk of working at Runbeck and that they were permitted to do it.
	Krauss.
	Yeah, that's it, Krauss.
	That other lawyer might be Krauss, the other government lawyer.
	But that, you know, people did it.
	She saw people do it.
	Did she tell you how many people or how many ballots she estimated might have been subject to this?
	Yeah, so she said she personally saw at least 50 that were brought in by employees and added at that point.
	Okay, thank you.
	I did hear about the 2020 Georgia case.
	I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
	Continuing on with Denise Marie.
	I agree.
	Her demeanor is very good.
	There was some back and forth between Mr. Blem and someone for the defense counsel and some objections were lodged.
	And so I'm not sure if you ever answered the question Mr. Blem asked.
	I believe he asked you if it was true that Denise Marie was asked to go get out of town because Maricopa didn't know.
	Did you answer that question?
	Do you have knowledge as to whether Denise claimed that she was asked to go get a ballot count because Maricopa didn't know?
	I don't believe that's what she said.
	Okay.
	Very good.
	Now, that was a dumb question from Sarah Krause, imitator.
	Mini Krause, I guess you'd call her.
	She was asked to go get a count and report it back so that they could call Maricopa and say, hey, this is how many ballots we...
	We scanned, and subsequently the number that the county was reporting increased by the same difference.
	You know, he was reporting 275, she counted the actual number of inbound scans, reported 298, and subsequently the number that Maricopa was reporting as the total ballots in the election increased by 25,000.
	Let's talk about that for a minute.
	In your experience, just based on your knowledge in working with elections, is it typical for elections departments to do reconciliation of ballots, make sure that they have the numbers right?
	Reconciliation should happen in multiple different places.
	For example, you reconcile the number of voters who check into a vote center.
	So the number of ballots cast in a vote center, those types of reconciliation are incredibly important.
	Now, Laura, will this be the first case Richard has testified in?
	In the chat?
	Well, let's move on from that.
	I want to talk about what happens at Runbeck.
	Do you know what happens to the ballots actually at Runbeck?
	What the elections department and Runbeck employees do with the ballots there?
	Yes.
	What do they do?
	So they load the ballots on the inbound machine.
	The inbound machine, by the way, is only operated by run-back employees.
	So they load them on, and they go through, and they cut them off at about a 10, 11 thousand batch size.
	What if third-party private companies involved in the election process?
	Never been in favor of that.
	Not when it was the Ebola in Ohio, not anybody.
	So they're scanning the signature on the envelope.
	They're creating a file.
	For that, that is then transmitted to Maricopa County so that they can start that signature verification process.
	All right.
	So, they go to Maricopa County to start the signature verification process.
	Is it your understanding that before a ballot, an early ballot is tabulated, the elections department I'm sorry, can you repeat that question?
	Honey, unfiltered.
	The elections department looks at the signature on the affidavit envelope and must determine whether it matches a signature in the voter registration file for that voter before it's going to go to tabulation.
	Okay.
	So, if employees at Runbeck put ballots into the stream at Runbeck, and let's say hypothetically that did happen, is it your understanding that those ballots would then go to McTeth to be signature verified?
	Well, to be clear, the ballots don't go for signature verification, the ballot images do.
	And yes, when they go through the inbound scan, they would be, but I don't believe that's the point.
	The point is that Arizona law says they're on invalid ballots if they're not returned to an authorized location.
	So that's an opportunity to insert ballots.
	And if Maricopa County was aware of the precise number of ballots, then if they inserted two, they would know they inserted two.
	I'm going to object to this line of questioning.
	This court would not let us come before it with evidence of signature verification.
	We wanted to.
	And now he's going right down that road, Your Honor.
	And if he keeps going down this road, I'm going to ask for a couple days next week to come to this court and talk about signature.
	You mean about the process?
	The process is part of it, Your Honor.
	And he's talking exclusively about process.
	Her direct examination, Your Honor, was limited to talking about chain of custody with respect to Dropbox to Runbeck.
	And not beyond that point.
	And so, Your Honor, if that door wants to open, I'm more than happy to drive a truck through it.
	May I respond, Your Honor?
	Or do you want to roll?
	Go ahead.
	My response would be the road I'm driving down is a different road, I think, than Mr. Blem wants to drive his truck.
	I'm talking about what actually happens, and I'm talking about it from the limited perspective of understanding what the effect of these votes that may have been inserted at Runbeck would actually be.
	I'm not...
	I'm not really talking about the signature verification process itself.
	I'm simply talking about what happens to a ballot that is at run back as it moves through the system.
	Your Honor, if you may please the court, I'll stipulate that those 50 ballots they talked about got counted.
	But I'll also do so only on the understanding, Your Honor, that that is a concession by defendants that it is possible to inject illegal ballots into the system.
	Your Honor, may I respond one more time?
	I understand, but I think this needs to be cleared up.
	Mr. Blem is making a legal argument that ballots that are harvested are illegal ballots and should not be counted.
	That's a legal argument.
	Your Honor, I don't believe in my direct examination of this client I ever even said.
	The word harvested.
	Now, more than happy to talk about it, and as a matter of fact, I believe it was defense counsel who brought up 2,000 mules.
	I haven't said anything about it, Your Honor.
	I'm talking about chain of custody.
	The legal documents this county has to prove how many ballots they picked up from drop boxes and took to run back.
	Let me change my statement.
	I understand it may have inadvertently irritated Mr. Blem.
	I didn't mean to do that with my choice of words, and I apologize.
	Well, it's not about irritating Mr. Blem.
	It's just about making sure we're getting it right as far as what each side's about to go into.
	Yeah, so let me amend my statement.
	What I was attempting to say was that Mr. Blem is making a legal argument that a ballot that is not...
	Deposited into the United States Postal Service mail or dropped off in a dropbox is an illegal ballot, I believe is what he said.
	And that's a legal argument.
	No, I think we're talking about chain of custody if we distinguish things.
	And he did discuss chain of custody very thoroughly with this witness.
	I believe I understand what you're asking about.
	He's correct that what you're discussing is the process for validation of signatures as it would relate to possible injection of ballots into the system without the chain of custody accounting.
	If I got that right, Mr. Blem, did you listen to what I said?
	I did, Your Honor, but I'm kind of hard to hear it.
	Well, I'm speaking soft, maybe.
	Do you want me to say it again?
	Try a combination of both, if you would, please.
	Okay, sure.
	If I've understood your objection, Mr. Bland, it's that you've limited your direct examination to chain of custody and what is being talked about here by Mr. LaRue.
	The questioning is to elicit testimony about the handling of ballots that might violate the chain of custody if they're into the system and why those ballots would still be Subject to verification through the signature validation process, regardless of how they came in.
	Your point is that you are saying, wait, it's only about the chain of custody.
	I'm here.
	I'm just listening to the judge.
	The direct examination was about chain of custody and the importance of chain of custody.
	God bless this guy, but he tends to repeat himself.
	He doesn't always pick up where the judge is.
	His brain is here.
	The judge's brain is there.
	Sometimes they're not meeting.
	And he's talking about the legal argument.
	What you're talking about is that there are votes that are not accounted for under the chain of custody that are placed into the ballot system or the election system.
	Go ahead.
	I can go down that road, Your Honor.
	It's illegal for a county elections official not to do a job they are legally required to do.
	So if we want to talk about illegality, we can go into that point.
	I understand your point, but I guess you're objecting to Mr. LaRue going into his argument that separate and apart from your position there, that if in fact ballots were somehow put into the system.
	In this instance, I think we're talking about the Runbeck ballots.
	Your Honor, that's fine.
	I'll let him go down this road because it's my understanding that what he's saying is, yep, it doesn't matter.
	The ballots were counted.
	And so I'll let him go down this road, Your Honor.
	I'm going to reserve my argument.
	Well, certainly.
	I'm going to talk to you all about closing arguments at the end of the day today.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Just a few more questions, Ms. Honey.
	You're not an attorney, correct?
	Okay.
	So I'm going to ask you a legal question that you only have to answer if you have an understanding about it.
	If you don't have an understanding, it's perfectly fine to say I don't know.
	Are you aware that under Arizona law, the ballot is not actually unlawful?
	If it is...
	The term that's used sometimes is harvested or ballot collection.
	But if somebody who is not authorized to handle it deposits it, or, like what happened at Runbeck, if somebody brings it and inserts it into the stream, but not into a designated authorized dropbox, are you aware that under Arizona law that is not actually an unlawful ballot?
	I think the term in the law is an invalid.
	Nice response.
	Just one minute, Your Honor.
	Oh, I asked another dumb question, Judge.
	Let me see how many more dumb ones I have.
	No more questions.
	Thank you very much.
	There you go.
	Sit down.
	That's the best thing he did on their cross-examination.
	Do you know what it's like to go up against idiot lawyers and because of the corruption of the system or the bias or prejudice of the system, they win?
	Talk about frustrating.
	If you have a competitive bone in your body, it can drive you crazy.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon, Ms. Honey.
	My name is Andy Gale, and I represent Secretary Hobbs in her official capacity.
	I want to echo Mr. LaRue's thanks for being here today.
	I'm going to be, and I may surprise Judge Thompson as well.
	I'll be very brief.
	First of all, as you sit here today, you have no evidence that anybody intentionally interfered with the chain of custody of ballots in Maricopa County for the 2022 general election, do you?
	I don't think I said that anybody interfered with it.
	I said they failed to maintain their legally required chain of custody.
	So your answer to my question then is yes.
	You have no evidence that anybody intentionally interfered with the chain of custody for ballots cast in Maricopa County for the 2022 general election, correct?
	I didn't hear it, so you can answer it.
	If you understand it, ma 'am, you can answer it.
	Excuse me.
	If you need it rephrased, I'll have it.
	Well, I think you're asking a question and sort of saying it in a way that I didn't say it.
	So if you would ask it in maybe a different way, that would be good.
	Sure.
	You have no evidence that anybody intentionally did not...
	It's a reasonable inference from the complete failure to have the relevant records.
	That's an intentional act, not having those records.
	...with respect to any ballots cast in Maricopa County in the 2022 general election.
	I believe I understand your question.
	And I would say that somebody, a person, and it's my understanding that the reporter is responsible for maintaining chain of custody.
	Somebody made the decision not to do it.
	And I would say that when they made that decision, knowing what the law is in Arizona, that that was an intentional decision.
	And I'm sorry, Ms. Honey, but again, that's not what I'm asking.
	Yes, it is.
	He's saying that's evidence of intentionality.
	Anybody made an intentional decision to do anything.
	Correct.
	To have necessary pertinent records to prove the election was in compliance.
	Your Honor, I think this is a yes or no question.
	Yes, it is.
	If you understand the question, if you don't understand it, ma 'am.
	I don't understand the question.
	I felt like I answered it, so I'm sorry.
	And then, other than the 50 ballots or so that were mentioned in one of the declarations about family members at Runbeck, you have no evidence that any other ballots were...
	"Injected" into the system at any point in time, correct?
	I'm sorry, Ms. Honey, again, it's a yes or no question.
	Other than those 50, you have no evidence of that, correct?
	Can you ask the question in a different way?
	Certainly.
	There was some discussion earlier that the employee at Runbeck is evidence for which one can draw inferences.
	Those inferences include intentional misconduct of a broader scale.
	Family members who dropped off their ballots at the Runbeck facility.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And my question is, beyond what that particular person told you with respect to those approximately 50 ballots, you have no evidence.
	That any other ballots were, quote-unquote, injected into the system at any point in Maricopa County for the 2022 general election.
	Is that correct?
	I could say that's not an answerable question.
	As you sit here right now, you have nothing else to say on that issue beyond the 50 ballots that were specifically mentioned to you by that individual, correct?
	No, I have something to say.
	No, I'm asking about evidence.
	Do you have evidence?
	Yes, I think that the...
	Failure to have chain of custody makes it impossible to know how many ballots were or were not transferred.
	As you sit here now, the only ones you know about are the 50 that were mentioned to you by the one witness, correct?
	The only identifiable ballots that you can speak to today are the 50 that were mentioned by the runback witness.
	I can't identify those 50. I don't know who they are.
	Thank you.
	I have nothing to rely on.
	The lame argument.
	Because we've destroyed the evidence, you can't produce the evidence, right?
	All right.
	Jump across.
	Yes, Your Honor, I'm sorry.
	We have no further questions and we have no objection to the witness being excused.
	Miss Heddy, do you recall the last question you asked?
	Is your point that it is impossible to know if any and or how many illegal votes were injected into a system without valid chain of custody?
	Correct.
	You can't tell how many potentially were added or how many were removed even.
	I mean, that's the whole point of chain of custody.
	Just sit down now.
	Don't ask another one.
	That's very good.
	Sit down.
	He's not going to, but I would.
	This guy's an old school state trial lawyer, so that's why he's real aggressive.
	You're old school guys that do a lot of trial work in state court.
	They're bombastic by nature.
	If I, hypothetically, have a choice to get a cup of coffee or a cup of water, and I choose coffee.
	I didn't choose one.
	Is that a choice?
	It's somebody Good point in the locals chat.
	In the Alex Jones trial, the absence of evidence was proof that that evidence existed.
	To produce them to my client's attorney.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	I'm assuming you're asking the witness to the extent of her knowledge.
	This is where the judge has been very fair.
	Helping clarify the proper way to ask a question in the evidentiary context.
	I don't think he's been very fair on legal, but I do think he's been very fair at governing this evidentiary here.
	Would it be an intentional act for somebody to choose not to make chain of custody documents to count the number of ballots?
	Or would it also be an intentional act to choose Well, again, to the extent that they didn't count them, I think that there's no reason to believe that they did count them or that any documents exist.
	I believe somebody made a decision not to maintain the chain of custody, not to follow the laws as they're written in the EPM.
	I agree with the chat.
	This is a witness who came across very, very well.
	Testified very effectively.
	Knew emotional control.
	Maintained it.
	Knew how not to get trapped.
	They don't have a choice.
	Very well.
	Great.
	There's no exception in the EPM to...
	Be right back in a second.
	I believe Secretary of State Hobbs, as a matter of fact, in a recent matter, involved in Cochise County.
	I think we got correspondence on that in the exhibit.
	And did you see correspondence from Secretary of State Hobbs?
	I did.
	Juco Chiefs County?
	Yes.
	What did she tell them in that correspondence with respect to Arizona law and the EPM?
	Objection here.
	This is beyond the scope of the cross-individation or the direct at this point.
	It is not, Your Honor.
	They asked my client specifically if she had any evidence.
	And I want to make a point, Your Honor, that even their client says, you have no, you have no choice.
	You must follow the law.
	When she told Cochise County, you must certify your election law.
	She said it in her letter.
	Just to clarify, please.
	Thank you.
	I'm not sure what the letter says that you're referring to.
	It says you must what?
	She told the Board of Supervisors for Cochise County that they have no choice but to do their legal duty and certify the election to make her governor of the state of Arizona.
	My argument here, Your Honor, that that same legal duty applies to Maricopa County with respect to their obligation to follow Arizona law and the elections procedure manual.
	No, okay.
	You are correct.
	They're obligated to follow the procedures in the manual.
	The question that was asked is whether she has any direct evidence that there was an intentional decision to not make the documents or not produce the documents, is what I recall.
	She didn't answer it directly.
	What she said in response was, they're supposed to do this, and the fact that it didn't get done tells me somebody must have made the decision.
	And that was the answer.
	So I think it's been asked an answer.
	To the extent that you're going to ask her about a conclusion of law, that's...
	Fair enough, Your Honor.
	I only got a few more questions, anyway.
	Please proceed, Mr. Martin.
	I think...
	If you recall, cross-examination correctly, I got the impression that defense counsel was sort of downplaying the injection of 50 ballots into the system.
	Do you recall those questions?
	I do.
	I believe they were.
	Do you have any evidence those 50 votes were not counted or something along those lines?
	Do you recall that question?
	I do.
	You don't have any evidence that those votes were not counted, do you?
	I don't know which ballots those were.
	Is that the point?
	That is the point.
	I mean, Denise said that she personally observed 50. She's not there all the time, so we don't know what that number is.
	And the reason we don't know what number that is is because we don't know how many there were supposed to be.
	Could it be five now?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Speculation, foundation.
	I agree, Your Honor.
	That's your point.
	That's your point, so sustained.
	Can't believe we're going for charge.
	That's all we can do, isn't it, Ms. Hunt?
	Is speculate, isn't it?
	Well, I strongly dislike speculating, but I think there's just no way to know the answer, and that's the problem.
	Any question I ask you about how many ballots it could have been would be nothing but pure speculation, isn't that right?
	Correct.
	And isn't that the problem?
	You testified earlier, and this gets back to their questions about chain of custody being complicated.
	Do you recall that?
	Is it complicated?
	I mean, it's more complicated in Maricopa because they outsource it, but...
	Chain of custody is chain of custody.
	I want to know how many ballots I'm transferring from point A to point B. The EAC says it's incredibly important.
	It's critical.
	Let's go back to your history and your background just very briefly so I can wrap this up.
	Supply chain management.
	What do you do in that area?
	I do consulting in the supply chain space.
	A lot of it is counter-diversion, but it's also in terms of loss prevention.
	Okay, loss prevention.
	All right.
	And so, do companies pay, and let's talk about widgets.
	Do companies pay millions of dollars every year to consultants to help them with their supply chain management?
	Your Honor, I'm going to object.
	It seems to me that this is beyond the scope of the cross-examination.
	It is.
	Your Honor, he asked her specifically.
	Specifically.
	He asked her, is change of custody complicated?
	Your Honor, I don't believe that was my question.
	Hold on.
	And my argument is this, Your Honor.
	Wait.
	I'm not in the habit of debating objections and rulings of objections.
	Understood.
	I'm just going to make a legal argument.
	Which is an argument with the judge about the ruling.
	Oh, no.
	I'm not trying to argue with the judge.
	I want to make a challenge to his objection.
	It may be a distinction without a difference.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	But if you're ever in a position where I make a ruling and you think that you need to make an offer of proof to show that I may be mistaken, I will let you do that.
	Okay?
	But not back and forth.
	Understood.
	Okay?
	I'd like to make a quick offer of proof right now.
	Then go ahead and do that.
	Andrew, honey, do companies spend millions of dollars a year?
	Wait.
	You're just continuing the questioning.
	As far as an offer of proof, I want you to tell me what you expect to prove and how that would make a difference with regard to my growth.
	That's what an offer of proof.
	I guess, Your Honor, I would expect to prove that.
	You know, companies, big companies spend millions of dollars every year, you know, to get 5,000 widgets to your local Ace Homework.
	And they do it successfully.
	I'm not arguing the concept.
	I'm arguing that whether or not your offer of proof is going to show me that this is something that was touched on in his cross.
	Understood.
	And I'll just move on to my last point.
	You were part of the 2021 Arizona election, is that correct?
	And this is relevant to Mr. LaRue's question to you about the Postal Service receipts.
	Do you recall that question?
	Yeah, I do.
	And Mr. LaRue was telling you, well, those aren't really receipts, are they?
	Those are weights.
	Is that true?
	I believe Mr. LaRue asked if it was possible that they were weight counts.
	And are weight counts a valid tool to count paper documents?
	Yes.
	Okay, why is that?
	Scales are precise and you can determine the weight of a single sheet of paper, determine the weight of a single pallet, and then weigh it and you know you're within It's a pretty accurate measurement.
	That's what weight counting is.
	Well, let me ask you this question.
	During the 2021 audit, did you and your crew weigh all of the ballots?
	I'll give them some leeway.
	Go ahead.
	You can answer it, ma 'am.
	Go ahead.
	We didn't weigh all of them.
	We weighed some boxes.
	Now the boxes that you did weigh, was the weight count consistent with the other counts?
	Yes.
	How many counts did you do?
	Different counts?
	I can't say so.
	I mean, half maybe?
	The machine count, right?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I didn't understand your question.
	Yes.
	There was a hand count, a weight count, a machine count.
	And in some cases, an audit count.
	And then there was a count of valid images as well.
	And so if the United States Postal Service or some other large company wants to bill their client for 50,000 pieces of mail, it's an effective way to do so by measuring weight.
	Same piece of the mail type.
	Same mail type.
	All right.
	I have no further questions.
	Excuse the witness.
	I excuse the witness.
	Thank you.
	No objection, Your Honor.
	Your excuse.
	Your next witness.
	Your next witness would be?
	Our next witness is probably Betty Court, please.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Sir, if you could just stand right there in front of my clerk, she will spur you in.
	Thank you, sir.
	Can you make your way around to the witness stand and have a seat, please?
	Who's going to do this examination?
	Are you ready, Mr. Olson?
	Yes, sir.
	Mr. Betancourt, would you please state your full name for the record?
	Bradley David Betancourt.
	And what is your occupation?
	Well, I generally work with real estate and have my own company and work with my dad.
	Did you have occasion to be hired by Maricopa County for any elections?
	They reached out.
	I applied and they reached out after.
	And when did they reach out to you?
	A little over a month before the election.
	And you're referring to the 2022 general election or the primary?
	The general election.
	And what is a TTEC?
	Well, we would set up the sites beforehand and site watch.
	And in terms of setting up the sites beforehand, what kind of work were you doing?
	Well, we focused mainly on the site books, the printers, and the MoFi.
	And the site books are the device that's used to check in a voter and have their ballot directed towards whatever precinct they're in?
	Correct, yes.
	I was wrong about the last witness, by the way.
	Thank goodness.
	Did you participate?
	In the election prior to Election Day in any kind of fashion?
	I was working with them for about a month, approximately.
	And we set up sites beforehand, some of the early polling sites.
	Turn the mic down.
	Early.
	And we actually created a TTIC group, a text group, to stay in touch while we were sight watching.
	How was that group set up?
	Was it through your supervisor?
	I lowered the mic volume a bit.
	The supervisor.
	And who was that?
	Okay, done.
	That was Jose.
	Do you have a last name?
	Jose Luis Arbaio.
	And is he an employee of Maricopa County?
	He's a permanent employee, yes.
	And what is his function at Maricopa County?
	Well, he was basically our supervisor for the T-TECHs.
	He had been a T-TECH previously.
	Can't turn the stream up.
	Kind of getting a permanent position.
	And how many T-TECHs were in this group that he set up?
	Well, there was him as the supervisor and then 15 T-TECHs.
	And approximately, how many vote centers would be covered by these 15 T-TECHs, which I assume you were one of them?
	Correct.
	Yes, I was a T-TECH.
	So, on election day, if that's what you're referring to, we all started out at one location.
	Some of us stayed at that location the whole day, and other ones moved around to multiple locations.
	If you actually...
	My volume is down to 43%.
	Do you have an estimate as to how many boat centers were covered by the 15 TTEX, approximately?
	I would say a minimum of 20 to 30. That's a bare minimum.
	At this point, I would like to bring up Exhibit 58, Your Honor.
	Everybody, I cannot turn up the volume on the feed.
	If my volume is still too high, let me know.
	I understand you guys adjusted your volume accordingly.
	I listened to the entire testimony of the previous witness.
	She was good.
	Over 54 pages of text messages.
	Do you recognize this document, sir?
	Absolutely, yes.
	By the way, I'm here just eating.
	But I did like the chat.
	And did you provide a declaration in this case?
	Yes.
	And you swore under oath, under the penalty of persia, to tell the truth, correct?
	Absolutely, correct.
	And did you, in connection with this declaration, provide?
	Screenshots of your text messages with the other TTEX, the other 15 TTEX that day?
	Yes, correct.
	Do you believe this to be, and you can scroll through some.
	Okay.
	And does this appear to be a true and accurate copy of your text messages?
	Yes, sir.
	It does.
	There were a lot of issues that came up throughout the day, and including at times, T-TEX would say the ballots look pristine, but the tabulators aren't reading them, so that would really not have to do with the printers from our point of view.
	And that wasn't just one person.
	There were others that...
	Do these text messages represent communications that were happening as they were occurring on Election Day?
	Yes, yes, in real time, absolutely.
	Your Honor, at this point, we'd like to move for Exhibit 58 to be entered into the record as evidence.
	It is hearsay, however, under present impression and excited utterance, as you will see, some of them, for example.
	If we could go to-- go to page base number 367.
	And at the bottom, you'll see, Your Honor, it says I'm having a 911.
	I would say that there are a number of-- if you just can scroll through these-- would classify or qualify as-- Either excited utterance or present sense impression, certainly.
	So we would move to have them admitted into the record under those exceptions, Your Honor.
	Any objections?
	Your Honor, Christine Afford, on behalf of the Governor-Elect, we do object to these coming in.
	There are more than, I believe, 50 pages of these texts, and one text out of 50 pages that I also submitted them, sir, under the present sense of impression.
	These are real-time messages, text messages that are being piped in as the events are unfolding on the day of election, and I believe it falls under that exception as well.
	I'm going to allow them because I think that they represent the correspondence back and forth between the techs who are working with their immediate impressions of trying to solve the problems.
	So go ahead.
	So what you're offering, what's the number I mean?
	It's 58, Your Honor.
	So I'll admit 58 over objection.
	Go ahead.
	Mr. Betancourt, can you describe What was going on with between you and your other T-TECHs on Election Day?
	You had to characterize it?
	Yeah, it was consistently talking back and forth trying to solve the problems and this group was really trying hard because there were a lot of issues that popped up and Actually our main fix Turned out to be Walk up to the printer open up the printer Take out the ink cartridge and shake it.
	So that was our main fix.
	It's not showing intentionality.
	I know the official county statement was that it changed the printer settings, but I'd say based on the text I saw, that was probably about 10 to 20% of the issue there.
	So I would say that would be an incomplete description of the issues from my point of view.
	Did the situation resolve very quickly or did it last throughout the day with the problems?
	That depended on the location.
	Some got better and some kept having issues.
	I mean, we had issues.
	I believe there was one even after closing time where they were asking someone to go over to Biltmore, I believe it is.
	You can confirm towards the end there.
	How old are you, sir?
	I'm 34 years old.
	And how long have you been in Arizona?
	Well, I've been off and on.
	I've actually lived in five states, but overall, a little over a decade in Arizona.
	And so you've been voting for how long?
	Well, I've been voting for 16 years, you know, in some different states, but mostly in Arizona during that time.
	How would you characterize the events on Election Day that you observed personally and also...
	Locals, Chad, has identified them as Alice Cooper's nephew.
	...servicing between 20 and 30 vote centers compared to elections.
	Even that you just participated in as a voter.
	It felt a bit chaotic.
	I have people from the other places I've lived.
	Throwing the locals chat.
	This would be a funny objection.
	I object to the objection, Your Honor.
	And I object to the object of the objection of the objection.
	Were these problems that have continued throughout the day at many of these vote centers?
	Yeah, and like I said, we tried to shake the cartridge.
	They cleaned the wire.
	They would have the inspector call over a troubleshooter to try to clean the tabulator because, like I said, sometimes in there the prints looked good, but the tabulator wasn't taking them anywhere.
	Yeah, that's my favorite object.
	That's why I don't like to object to evidence that looks bad.
	It just highlights it.
	Unless you really have a real strong evidentiary ground.
	And then I throw in objections elsewhere.
	A jury who's watching won't know what's...
	How upset were voters that you interacted with or heard about?
	Wow.
	Well, they, I heard some people very upset.
	More so at other locations.
	We didn't have quite as many issues at our location.
	Well, you know, somebody points out Jill Biden looks like a female analyst.
	That is really true.
	That is really true.
	I'm still growing up.
	This guy's lived in five states.
	That's your average Arizona resident.
	Interesting.
	I think half of Arizonans were born there.
	Laura Barris pointed out they're saving the best for last.
	One and only Richard Barris.
	And they said she should open up the blue bin where the tabulator is.
	There are 35,000 people watching between YouTube and Rumble on this stream alone.
	Well, they understand where to go, too.
	Did you ever give people dress advice about how to dress for court?
	Not meaningfully.
	Don't wear anything bad.
	Well, you have some sharp suits when you dress up.
	Those are nice ones.
	And were there lines outside?
	I vary what I'm going to wear depending on whether I'm the judge or the jury.
	If it's the judge, I tend to go high end.
	If it's the jury, I stick with off the shelf.
	And do you understand the check-in process?
	That's more the polling worker side of it, the site book area.
	Smash that honey button.
	I wasn't responsible for that.
	Honey, I think, is their favorite witness.
	Honey and the expert were both good.
	Honey, I was listening to Honey and Cross.
	She was good.
	Did you hear about long lines extending past 8 o 'clock at night?
	Yes.
	It's in the texts.
	I know at least one or two places.
	I know someone who wasn't in this group because this was the East Valley group and there was a West Valley group as well.
	I know someone in the West Valley.
	He didn't get home.
	I left.
	My site at about 10, and we had had a short line.
	Love North Georgia.
	Great part of the country.
	Probably wrapped up about 8 p.m.
	And then this other guy from the West group had left at about 10.30, 10.45.
	And I know there was at least one or two people in this group.
	So is this the guy who experienced the craziness on Election Day?
	Is that the purpose of this testimony?
	Do you know whether or not any people who were waiting in line just simply gave God bless all the...
	I mean, I think the lawyers are solid.
	But they could preview things a little bit better.
	But this is also a product of America's legal system, where you have to do all these foundational and the rest.
	And the average juror doesn't know where to contextualize.
	My site had less problems than the others, so I can only speak for my site, and I don't have any knowledge of that specifically.
	All right.
	Thank you, Mr. Betancourt.
	Cross-exam.
	Yeah.
	Okay, what was his point?
	So he just had first-hand knowledge of what was going on at one of the polling stations.
	It was ridiculous what happened.
	I get it.
	Chaotic, etc.
	And here, he's the one to admit the text messages because I guess no one else.
	I understand from your testimony and from your declaration in this case that you helped set up equipment in preparation for election day.
	Yeah, there you go.
	You didn't intentionally cause the tabulators to reject ballots, correct?
	No, actually, we weren't even specifically focused on the tabulators with our position.
	And you don't know of any other T-techs who intentionally caused the issue?
	Don't ask that question.
	They were temporary employees, so I don't know of any T-techs that caused that issue.
	And you said here today that you were hired, along with your other TTEQs, to help resolve problems that were occurring at polling locations, correct?
	Yes, that was part of it, the setting up of sites along with resulting problems when they arose.
	And then you were in fact deployed to help resolve these issues when they did spike up, correct?
	Yes.
	Would you agree with me that sometimes tabulators cannot read a ballot due to the way that the voter marks the ballot?
	I thought that was a conspiracy theory.
	Remember?
	Marking the ballot couldn't cause any issues with the tabulators.
	Is that what they told us after 2020?
	Now it does?
	Okay, well I wanted to go through some of those.
	So I understand from your declaration that...
	You and your fellow T-Techs sometimes found that cleaning the Corona wire in the printer would sometimes help fix the tabulator issue.
	Corona wire?
	Yes, and the Corona wire, that was on the older printers.
	Come on.
	I know.
	That wasn't part of the location I was at.
	And the group also found that changing the toner, shaking the toner, and sometimes make improvements to the tabulators.
	Yeah, shaking the toner actually worked a decent amount.
	It wasn't perfect, but it helped.
	And then you also found that letting the printer warm up could also improve the situation?
	We have to go back to the text and confirm that.
	I don't recall that specifically, but there were a lot of texts.
	Next question.
	Do you think the coronavirus could have caused this?
	Okay.
	You have no personal knowledge as to whether the printing and tabulator errors change the outcome of the election.
	Sorry, the outcome of the election, correct?
	I don't see how there's any way I could prove that one way or another.
	You have no personal knowledge.
	Stupid question.
	Yeah.
	You don't know that all these problems cause any problems in the election, right?
	So you similarly do not have any personal knowledge of whether the printing errors were the result of an intentional scheme to undermine the election?
	Because I wrote it down in advance on my little sheet.
	That's why I hate pre-done questions like this outside of a few.
	Have topics.
	Don't have questions.
	You get stuck with the script.
	Well, not just that, but if he's a good witness, he could say, look, it doesn't take rocket science to know that if votes don't get tabulated, it impacts the election.
	Those are all arguments about what evidence he presented or not at the end.
	Corn pops in the house.
	He's got some crazy hair, and he's a bad dude.
	I think Barris might be coming up now.
	God, if Laura's watching, she's going to be nervous.
	Richard, why is this lawyer's graveyard smaller?
	The plot.
	OK, the plots are only two.
	He's done.
	That's it.
	He's out.
	That was quick into the point.
	But the shaking of the toner, it will strengthen the argument.
	It wasn't intentional.
	It was just neglect or negligence or whatever.
	We had to shake the toner up a little bit.
	That's all.
	Why would the toner not be full?
	The other concerning thing is they clearly had no idea or intention.
	Of actually getting to the bottom of things and holding people accountable.
	That's what's very clear in this hearing.
	Maricopa County did nothing to figure out what went wrong and why it went wrong.
	It's not Barris!
	Who is it?
	I don't know.
	some storm club you can just come over in front of the park Joshua The last witness?
	I do.
	This suit here, he's got his own water.
	He's got a nice form-fitting suit.
	Tapered.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Sonnenklar.
	Good afternoon.
	Would you please state your full name for the record?
	Mark Sonnenklar.
	S as in Sam.
	O-N-N-E-N-K-L-K-R.
	And what is your occupation, sir?
	I'm a lawyer.
	And how long have you been a lawyer?
	26, almost 27 years.
	Did you have an opportunity to strike that?
	How long have you lived in Arizona?
	Moved back to Arizona about two years ago, a little more than two years ago.
	I was here from age 9 through 21, so I don't know, 13 years total.
	Did you have an opportunity to participate in the 2022 election cycle?
	I did.
	And in what capacity did you participate in that cycle?
	I was a roving attorney in the Republican National Committee's election integrity program for the primary and the general election.
	And what does a roving attorney do?
	A roving attorney goes to the vote centers and just observes what is happening at the vote centers to determine if things are going well or not.
	whether things are working in accordance with law.
	In your expert opinion, was there a lot of When did you first act as a roving attorney?
	During the primary on August 2nd, 2022.
	And can you describe what you did as a roving attorney during the primary?
	The process that I used...
	Which we were trained to use for both the primary and the third election.
	By the way, he's cluing him in that he should have asked about his training.
	To go to the vote center.
	As we were trained, remember you're supposed to ask me that first.
	To the inspector of that vote center.
	Who is an inspector?
	The inspector is the lead person, the lead poll worker at a vote center.
	So they're employed by Maricopa County?
	Yes, I believe they are paid by Maricopa County.
	Is that a temporary position, or are they a full-time employee of Maricopa?
	They're temporary.
	So, I would go to the vote center.
	I would ask for the inspector.
	I would ask the inspector if there was a Republican observer inside the vote center, because by law, we're not allowed to have more than two observers from any one party within the vote center.
	I would ask to speak with the Republican observer if there was one outside.
	I would ask that Republican observer how things were going, what he or she was seeing inside the vote center.
	I would take notes on what the Republican observer told me.
	I would then ask the Republican observer to remain outside, and then I would go.
	Back into the vote center and speak with the inspector and ask really the same questions that I had asked the Republican observer.
	How are things going?
	If there were issues, I would ask more questions about those issues.
	And I was trying to determine whether, you know, what the Republican observer was telling me was matching up with what the inspector was telling me.
	And I took notes while I was talking with the inspectors as well.
	Did you create a report in connection after the election associated with that?
	And I'm talking about the primary.
	I did.
	I had a sense that there was going to be litigation, and I knew that I had information that would be critical to that litigation.
	And so I reached out to, there were 17, 17 or 18, I'm not clear exactly.
	But I believe there were 17 roving attorneys in the program with the RNC.
	And I reached out to all of them and asked them what their experience was.
	And they reported to me.
	And I created a report based on my own personal experience at 10 vote centers during the general election and 105 other vote centers.
	That the roving attorneys who responded to me, which I believe were 10, I believe, responded to me and were willing to tell me what had occurred, what they had seen.
	So the 11 of us put together observed at 115 vote centers.
	How many vote centers did you personally visit?
	10. And this is during the general election, correct?
	Yes.
	And what was your experience at what you personally saw at those 10 vote centers?
	Well, it was really pandemonium out there everywhere.
	I was within, from Fountain Hills to North Scottsdale, where my vote centers were.
	I started out in Fountain Hills and immediately, I mean, there was a line, there was a line of 150 people at Fountain Hills.
	The tabulators were not working.
	And that was what I saw at, you know, I saw the same thing happening at six of my ten vote centers.
	There were different things happening at some of the other ones too, but six of them in particular were really bad.
	And so you've been voting for a number of years, correct?
	How would you characterize the events of the 2022 general election compared to other elections that you witnessed?
	Chaos.
	Oh, this was a completely different animal here.
	So I was a roving attorney during the primary, and there were some minimal problems there, too.
	But the general election was a completely different situation.
	There were lines out the door which you did not see during the primary at many of the vote centers.
	There were angry and frustrated voters who did not want to put their ballots into box three.
	And then there were the poll workers who...
	We're extremely frustrated and really didn't know what to do.
	Most of them, I would say, were doing their best, you know, to figure out a solution to the fact that the tabulators were down, were not reading the ballots.
	Everyone was just freaked out.
	Question for you.
	There's been some testimony earlier about wait times.
	Do you have an understanding of how the county measures wait times?
	Yes, I understand that.
	One of the poll workers is supposed to check the line every 15 minutes and report back to MCTEC, is my understanding.
	It would have been difficult.
	I don't know where you're going with the question, but it would have been very difficult for the poll workers who were crazed trying to figure out just how to get the tabulators to read the ballots.
	I can't imagine that there was time for any poll workers at the worst vote centers anyway to go out and check the lines.
	We saw the videos.
	The day of, there were countless videos of people freaking out.
	You visited personally about 10 vote centers.
	Yes.
	And that the other roving attorneys that you were working with, it was a total of about 115 vote centers in total.
	Yes.
	And that's 115 out of about, I think, 223 vote centers, correct?
	That's correct.
	So that's a little over half of the vote centers.
	I believe it was 52%.
	Totally normal.
	Are you able to characterize what the other roving attorneys were experiencing, whether it was similar to what you were experiencing or worse?
	Or maybe not as bad?
	Objection.
	How would you characterize?
	Well, I would say that most of the roving attorneys had a similar experience to mine.
	I can't think of one that had a different experience.
	There may be, but for the most part, aggregated together.
	Nice job sneaking that in.
	Pretty much everyone had the same experience.
	And if somebody were to characterize the events of that day as minor technical difficulties that should be expected in any I would say that's nonsense.
	When you have 132, we've been able to document that there were at least 132 vote centers with tabulator problems out of 227, which comes out to about 59%.
	I don't see how that could be characterized as a small matter.
	You mentioned you created a report along with the other roving attorneys that you worked with.
	Did you disseminate that report to anybody?
	I did send that report out.
	Yes, I did.
	Do you believe that report is accurate in its recitation of the events of Election Day?
	Absolutely.
	I was very careful not to exaggerate, overstate.
	I was careful to be factual.
	And is that report based on sworn conversations plus sworn declarations?
	Who is this witness designed for?
	Who is he designed for?
	Moderate, older, Republican, sedate in tone.
	I was going to say, never mind, I was going to make a joke, but that's a good one.
	It's a very good choice.
	This guy was particularly picked for the judge.
	He's like the mirror of the judge.
	Younger version, but like a mirror.
	I don't get the glowy the Fed vibe that everybody gets, but I think that's a standard internet joke.
	Well, that is part of what makes him good for this judge, right?
	He comes across as establishment-oriented.
	I'm respectable.
	I communicate correctly.
	I don't overstate.
	I don't exaggerate.
	He's like a substitute for the judge's own personality, a mirror.
	So it enhances the credibility, increases the political pressure on the judge to be like, man, something went wrong here.
	I should probably do something.
	It's the podium, actually.
	I just find he looks a bit like Ray Liotta mixed with Bill Murray.
	That's a very good comparison.
	So the report, though, he's got this report.
	This is not a formal report.
	This is just his own observations that he made.
	They may want to introduce it as an exhibit.
	Mr. Sonnenclair, is this a...
	Maricopa County, I would object to this document.
	So then why object to it if it's duplicative?
	I mean, it's kind of a lame objection.
	be admitted to the truth of the matter asserted for persons he's talked to it would be he made the report contemporaneously with the events this report under rule 807 one of the documents that we gave notice to and I would say that the your honor can judge the value of the weight but given as the witnesses testify to we're talking about 105 votes so to that is he and his other fellow
	So it's not actually duplicative.
	It's more efficient for the court.
	What's sometimes called a summary witness.
	Oh, he looks like Boehner.
	Yeah, that's true, but that's an unfortunate comparison.
	But good for the judge.
	Again, this is where this judge likely comes from.
	Establishment, old school, Republican.
	Went to BYU, I believe that probably means an argument.
	I was willing to admit under 807 the attached statements of the other roving attorneys.
	So you can choose.
	You can choose to either have those affidavits admitted under 807.
	Or you can forego that and ask him questions about it.
	Or both?
	And so you can have them.
	That's fine.
	That's okay.
	I would choose the declarations of the other.
	Testifying his report and the affidavits that he's referring to in his testimony and his report.
	So I don't know if you understood this morning that I was willing to admit the affidavits attached to Santa Clara's.
	Very interesting he got the pronunciation of the name right.
	That's not an easy name to pronounce, and he knew right away exactly how to pronounce it.
	I'm going to Google this lawyer and see if...
	I believe that under 807, the same analysis applies to what I told you this morning, that they appear to also be very factual as opposed to advocate advocacy.
	That's why he likes the guy.
	Factual, opposed to advocacy.
	Your linear judge tends to be this way.
	They distrust emotion.
	They distrust aggression.
	They like, hello, here are the facts.
	They're in this manner.
	That's why he talks like this.
	Sometimes he sounds like he's whispering.
	I think I know where I'm going, sir.
	Forgo.
	We will keep them into evidence, as Your Honor alluded to, and we will move on to another topic.
	Not another witness, though.
	I think that's...
	Okay, whatever.
	I mean, the other declarations are good, and the judge signaled he likes those other declarations.
	Yes, true.
	I mean, I might have pushed...
	If you're the lawyer, you're like, eh, okay.
	You better not screw me on that later, Judge.
	Well, actually, true.
	If all they needed him to do was testify to get the exhibit in, and now the judge says it's in, so he doesn't need to testify on it, that's a win-win.
	I thought he presented very well.
	I don't know if I...
	I wouldn't cross this guy much if I was them, but they can't help themselves.
	I need to clip the part, Robert, where you said, stop asking a question, and then he went on and asked one more question.
	Yeah, so he has like 30 more.
	That was Carrie Lake's lawyer.
	It's always tempting.
	It's as important to know where to finish as it is to where to start.
	You get a good answer?
	Sit down.
	It's 620.
	They've got to finish with Barris.
	Even if it's 730, that'll be 530 their time.
	There's a possibility, based on the court's ruling, they may not be sure whether they can get Barriss in.
	To Benny B's question in the chat, the Lakes team did a very good job today.
	Sonnenklar.
	Sonnenklar.
	No wonder he's used to spelling his name.
	Nobody's going to get that right.
	It's like a Wisconsin name.
	You talk about tough names.
	Oh my goodness.
	Between the polls and everybody else, I couldn't get anybody's name right.
	Lawyer, Sonnenklar, Key West, Florida.
	That's not going to be the right one.
	He said he just moved back two years ago.
	On the screen is what has been marked for identification as Exhibit 91. It is an exhibit that was part of a response letter by Maricopa County to the AG's letter dated November 19th questioning some of the events around Election Day.
	Have you ever seen this document before?
	Yes, I've read it multiple times.
	And do you recognize this as a document that was produced by Maricopa County?
	Yes.
	Do you have any reason to doubt that it's a true and accurate copy?
	No.
	John, at this time we would move to admit exhibit.
	That's hearsay.
	No objection, Your Honor.
	I mean, let it end, but that's clear hearsay.
	Why not call the official who wrote the...
	I would force the person who wrote it to testify.
	Mr. Sonnenclair.
	Do you see where it states on the first page of this document?
	In the paragraph beginning while a few...
	You see that?
	While a few 2022 general election locations encountered 80 to 115 minute wait times on election day, Maricopa County posted these wait times on our website.
	Informing voters of other nearby options that had shorter times?
	Yes, I see it.
	Do you have an understanding, based on your work, whether or not that's an accurate statement?
	That's not an accurate statement.
	And why do you say that?
	There were many more vote centers.
	I mean, I must have had, I believe I had two at least just in my 10 that had longer wait times than 80 minutes.
	And they're not included in the list in footnote 1. And you're talking about footnote 1 on the page that's bait stamped, the last three digits, 715, the first page of this document?
	And in addition to that, you know, we documented through declarations...
	This is a dumb cross-examination.
	All their cross-examinations are terrible.
	You got the exhibit in.
	You can argue from it later.
	You're now giving him a chance to take it apart and tell you why it's wrong.
	Man, government lawyers are bad.
	So I found Mark Sonnenklar.
	He doesn't seem to be in the news until a month ago.
	Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the policy has been trying to understate the extent of the problems at the vote centers that arose on Election Day?
	Yes, I do.
	Your Honor, object to foundation and execution.
	Hold on.
	A co-defendant is objecting to us?
	What the?
	That's bad.
	Your Honor, my co-counsel is an idiot.
	Please, please don't let him continue to ask away these questions, please.
	Object to the objection!
	Co-defendant is objecting to a cross from their co-defendant.
	Yeah.
	As to foundation.
	No, they should absolutely, he should not even entertain this.
	Well, what it is, is the co-defense counsel is signaling, a judge has a bad line of questioning.
	Would you please stop it?
	I think we're going to have to call this judge, what, Judge Whisperer?
	Yes, sir.
	I mean, I was the one who oversaw the...
	We did see, that's right, the Jenny Depp trial, the issues, how many vote centers had tabulator problems, how many vote centers had long lines.
	I've also read this...
	Now this question has set up a worse answer for the defense.
	What's your foundation?
	Well, this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.
	I don't think any of the crosses have been good from the state and the county.
	Yes, Sonnenklaer is a German last name.
	Do you realize the government disagrees with you, sir?
	Don't you realize the government is right and you're wrong, sir?
	And the government's like, what?
	You don't?
	And you have evidence?
	Oh, here's the one who just objected.
	I'm here on behalf of the governor-elect.
	He got the message.
	Your declaration gives some figures about how many vote centers were affected with tabulator issues and lines.
	And these figures were gathered from reports of yourself, other...
	RNC roving attorneys and Republican observers, correct?
	That's correct.
	Your declaration in this case concludes that 64 of 223 vote centers had long lines on Election Day, correct?
	That's correct.
	So you concluded that more than 70% of vote centers on Election Day did not have long lines?
	Give me a break.
	What I would say about that is that we had time constraints in putting together our issues spreadsheet.
	And so I firmly believe that had we had additional time, basically we had to gather declarations from a lot of people in order to prove what we wanted to prove.
	In order for the evidence to show 64, we showed on the issues spreadsheet.
	That 64 vote centers had long lines.
	Had we had more time, I firmly believe that we would have been able to show that more vote centers had long lines.
	The same declaration concluded that only 24 of 223 vote centers had long lines on election day after 3 p.m.
	Only 20%.
	I would say the same thing.
	You just answered.
	Well, honestly, let me go back to my pre-prepared question.
	The same one you just humiliated me on.
	What we were able to document in the time period that we had was that 24, which in my view is a lot of vote centers to have problems after 3 p.m.
	Given the fact that the Board of Supervisors stated that the problem was completely resolved as of mid-afternoon.
	See how bad?
	Don't fall off.
	If you get smacked in the face, don't say, huh, let me ask you my second scripted question.
	They'll allow you to smack me in the face again.
	But the evidence that you put board in your declaration was not.
	Only 24 of 223.
	I'm going to re-ask my dumb question.
	That's all I was able to conclude in the time that I had.
	Stop talking right now.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Stop it.
	Move on.
	Shut up.
	Move on.
	You're not a real lawyer.
	Any voter in Maricopa County may go to any vote center they wish, correct?
	Oh, now they're going to go.
	You could have gone somewhere else.
	You did not personally witness any voter who left a vote center.
	Without casting a ballot after encountering a tabulator.
	I guarantee you he did.
	I wasn't looking for that.
	So here today you can't tell me that you witnessed that?
	I can't, but a lot of the declarations do indicate...
	And Bill Gates said to go do it.
	Go to another voting station.
	He said it in a video.
	You have no personal knowledge as to whether these printing errors...
	Personal knowledge of how he screwed up this election, right?
	Beyond what you already testified to, right?
	Projection, Your Honor.
	Foundation.
	Your Honor, I'm just asking whether he knows.
	I would say, you know, there's only 17,000 roughly votes separating the two candidates for governor.
	Based on what I saw on Election Day, I would say there's no question in my mind that had there not been tabulator issues at 132 vote centers.
	This election would have ended up with Carrie Lake winning.
	Wow!
	Testimony that he didn't even get out on direct!
	She just got out of cross!
	He gave him the causation!
	He just gave the whole evidence right there!
	Because this idiot didn't listen to the wise young lawyers and would-be lawyers.
	Don't ask cross questions like this.
	Robert, no further questions.
	You asked four questions too many.
	Or you can just get up and say, are you a Republican?
	Wow.
	Oh, now we get Little Krause.
	Little Krause.
	That the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in drafting its correspondence to Jennifer Wright at the Attorney General's office intended to deceive her.
	Is that correct?
	I don't see how you could...
	Is that correct?
	I don't see how you could view what happened on Election Day and issue that report in good faith.
	Do you have any evidence that the authors of that wrote that report with an intent to deceive?
	You just said it was in bad faith.
	It's just common sense, sir.
	Is that a yes or not?
	That's a great answer.
	Common sense tells you that if they issued that report and they are the ones in charge of the election, then so many things in that report were false.
	That's not a good posture for you.
	So that's what common sense tells me.
	Is that your testimony?
	Yeah, common sense tells me that there was a cover-up here.
	Okay, that tells you.
	Wow.
	I mean, just bam, bam, bam, bam.
	I don't know what's in your mind, sir.
	But you do know what's in the mind of the five members of the Board of Supervisors.
	All I can say is that I believe that they were trying to cover up here because I don't see how else you could explain the Board of Supervisors report.
	It was blatantly false in so many ways.
	But you have more evidence of that.
	Oh, no, I have a lot of evidence.
	Evidence that they're intent to deceive.
	That's another clippable moment.
	I mean, all of these lawyers, you just shut up.
	Just shut up.
	If you're the county and the state, shut up.
	They would have been better off with no lawyers today.
	None.
	None.
	They would use some of the worst evidence against them.
	But you can read the mind of the members of the Board of Supervisors.
	But you can't read the mind!
	No, I'm just saying that common sense shows that the most reasonable inference is that they're lying to them.
	Other than to conclude...
	That there was an intent to minimize the problems on election day.
	He keeps helping the plaintiff's case, helping Carrie Lake's case.
	Sit down, loser, you lost.
	You've just responded to my query by saying problems plural, because when you were initially testified, you said problems singular.
	And your testimony was about problems related to tabulators.
	Do you remember that testimony?
	Well, now you've expanded it again.
	No, I mean your testimony right here in this courtroom a few minutes ago.
	Yes, I recall my testimony.
	Okay.
	And you recall that you witnessed at least two vote centers, and you've heard of a lot of others.
	I think the world could be exploding.
	And this guy would be like, yeah.
	No, there were six vote centers out of ten that I observed at that had material tabulator problems.
	Did any of them have printer problems?
	Yeah.
	You know, my understanding is...
	Can you tell us of the other problems that you didn't get a chance to expound on in your direct examination?
	Is that your understanding from your direct observation?
	Yes.
	So you were able to observe the printers putting in not enough ink in some of the ballots?
	So my declaration sets this out.
	Could you please give us some more?
	One of the vote centers that I went to...
	More places where we screwed up, please.
	They had a massive problem with the tabulator not working.
	Okay, thank you.
	You've already testified about your conversation with the inspector.
	I heard that.
	I don't like you saying these things, so I'm going to keep asking you things in embarrassment.
	My question was your observation.
	This is my observation.
	Excuse me.
	Your observation with the problems with the printers, not what you heard from inspectors.
	Can you answer that?
	Yeah, I saw it.
	It was terrible.
	My observation was in relation to a conversation I had with the inspector.
	So that would be, you heard it from somebody else who observed it.
	I'm not a technical person.
	I don't know exactly what caused the problem, okay?
	But an inspector showed me the balance.
	Okay, so you don't know what caused the problem, right?
	But you know that whatever the Board of Supervisors said was intended to deceive the Attorney General, even though you don't know, correct?
	I don't see what one thing has to do with the other.
	There's a problem as well.
	How about wet pens?
	Wet pens that might cause problems in the tabula.
	Did you observe any of that?
	No, I didn't know that at all.
	So you testified earlier that you have voted several times in Arizona, but you've never seen lines like the lines you saw in the general election in 2022.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	Did you vote in the presidential preference of 2016?
	No, I wasn't here in 2016.
	Would it surprise you to find out that in many instances...
	We've screwed up worse in the past.
	Are you aware of that?
	God, these guys were a disaster.
	Disaster cross.
	Disaster cross.
	Make it limited.
	Please just ask one or two and sit down.
	They just screwed up and sunk themselves.
	Mr. Son and Claire.
	Would it surprise you if people in Maricopa County, voters in Maricopa County, heard about the problems at all the vote centers and simply didn't get into line to vote because they didn't have time?
	Yeah, okay.
	Did anyone tell you that?
	Yeah, did anyone tell you that they didn't vote because of that?
	You have a belief As to, it's a yes or no question.
	Do you have a belief as to whether or not voters on Election Day strike them?
	Do you have a belief that there are?
	This wasn't a compelling enough question.
	They burned themselves.
	I would have asked no follow-up.
	Beyond.
	Have you seen worse lawyering than you just witnessed by the defense?
	It reminds me of the screw-up in the Rittenhouse trial.
	Remember when they asked him, well, you don't know.
	They asked, what's his name, the reporter.
	Remember that?
	They asked him some question about, well, you can't know this, and he was like, yeah, he...
	He said this right before he did it.
	Gross croats.
	Yeah.
	He said F you before pointing the gun.
	Yeah.
	Summary exhibits.
	Two summary exhibits that were attached to his declaration.
	Finally, yeah, he said F you while reaching for him or trying to get him.
	And I was like, that was the wrong question.
	And that came out on cross in that case.
	Yep.
	Can we excuse this gentleman?
	Yes.
	Thank you, Mr. Sankler.
	Your excuse.
	That was a little more sort of thank you.
	Did you notice that from the judge?
	Whatever chance Lake has was dramatically given by that.
	What I'm hearing is plaintiffs are willing to rest with the exception of addressing the exhibit issue.
	That would be a good choice.
	That was so good for him.
	He was actually giving him a cue there.
	Because honestly, I would rest here.
	What else are you going to get?
	What is Barris supposed to testify on?
	He would just be testifying the same thing that guy testified to.
	Just testifying to the polling results of people reporting massive problems with voting.
	It's my understanding.
	I don't know the scope of his testimony, obviously.
	The power of us going back and forth about whether a certain exhibit fits within my ruling or not.
	This is probably a poor question.
	That's funny.
	He was about to say something to the defense and he's like, ah, never mind.
	The ruling was extended to admitting whatever exhibits are associated with the following exhibits or attachments to the affidavit that we filed, Mr. Olson.
	Uh, It's always interesting getting the exhibits in.
	Everybody wants to help you with your sound.
	I've been saying for like four months I'm going to soundproof the room.
	New year.
	In the new year.
	I promise.
	Abject disaster.
	This has been an abject disaster for Arizona.
	Yeah, for Hobbes.
	Maricopa County.
	Plaintiffs have labeled exhibits A1.
	Anybody who says it has not been an abject disaster is spin artist.
	Liar or not watching.
	Oh, completely.
	Or in denial.
	Doesn't mean she'll win.
	It's obviously still a long shot.
	No, as presentations go, both her experts were very good and the lawyer was very good.
	And the defense has been atrocious.
	They have no defense to what happened on the election on the printer tabulator issue other than maybe it was the toner.
	Maybe it was we shrunk it to fix.
	Maybe we had 20 other security problems we could do instead.
	After you shook the toner, you got your tabulator in, and that was fine, even though it took 30, 60 minutes and people were leaving?
	And again, none of these problems should have happened so systemically without major institutional flaws in the management of the election.
	And then she did really good.
	I was a little nervous with the...
	I think one of the people in the locals' chat called her a Googler expert.
	You know, the open-source intelligence, all that.
	I like open-source forensic investigation sounds much better, right?
	That sounds, oh, that's authoritative.
	It just means, you know, it does mean Googler for the most part.
	But she ended up testifying very well, kept even tone, even tenor, gave the substance of evidence they needed to get in, and then he was the perfect wrap-up guy.
	I would have been very tempted to just stick with him unless there's something I can't get in evidentiary otherwise.
	I haven't.
	I've been keeping track of the time.
	I haven't got a grand total.
	Somebody else keeping track?
	Richie McGinnis was the Rittenhouse trial.
	Thanks for the...
	Richie McGinnis, yeah.
	Some locals.
	We're keeping track.
	It's been seven hours and 40 minutes.
	With regards to time.
	Including...
	They're over five and a half, but I don't know if he's putting cross-examination time in the defense's side of the time equation rather than plaintiff's.
	So now how many more do they have left?
	I mean, wouldn't you be tempted to rest here unless there's some really evidence that you have to get in with someone else?
	They said Richard Barris.
	They couldn't introduce Barris'report.
	Mr. Baris, which is your answer?
	Your Honor, I don't think it will take as long as Mr. Baris.
	Famous last words.
	I'm smiling again because we're down to the brief, and I've only got a few things, Your Honor.
	Your Honor, if I may, our records indicate the plaintiff has consumed 272 minutes, 22 seconds.
	The defense together has consumed 87 minutes, 27 seconds.
	So the cross-examination is not included in the plaintiff's time.
	That explains things.
	So they've consumed almost all their time.
	I'd be tempted to rest unless...
	Is there somebody you're going to put up that's...
	You can't...
	To me, they've proven what they can prove.
	If I take his total, that puts you at four and a half hours.
	It means you've got a total of an hour left, including your closing argument.
	Including, I guess, your cross-examination.
	Really?
	Including cross?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I would not call anybody else.
	LolaTX, RumbleRant, $5.
	Thank you, Viva and Barnes.
	I could do the cross-examination in 10 minutes.
	I'm infamous for my show.
	I could do the cross-examination in like two and a half minutes, but the judge wouldn't get it.
	Like a speed-talking cross.
	It's a strategy call.
	So you've got four witnesses.
	How much time do you think?
	Again, I'm skating fast on thin ice talking to lawyers about time estimates.
	Well, I will, of course, promise that we're going to be as efficient as possible.
	We'll use tonight to make sure.
	We have estimates in what we submitted to the court, and we'll go back and see if we can pare those down to make sure we're staying within time.
	Okay.
	That's fair.
	Here's my...
	Here's my concern.
	We got some more memes in the locals chat.
	I'm concerned about closing arguments.
	Not the Trump one, but the witness one.
	I do want to hear closing arguments.
	Tonight?
	Not tonight.
	Tomorrow.
	Tomorrow.
	He's trying to figure out the schedule.
	Is everything going to be wrapped tomorrow night?
	Co-op didn't.
	Uh-oh.
	Robert?
	What?
	Robert?
	You're still there, right?
	I'm still here.
	Well, what the son of a beasting.
	How could...
	That's it.
	Shut it down.
	I just tweeted out to Katie Hobbs.
	Maybe she shut the stream down.
	Hold on.
	Oh, no.
	Okay, so they definitely seem to have just gone down.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Are you seeing a blue screen right now?
	I mean, I see everything.
	You see everything?
	But I don't see the court, no.
	Okay, so hold on.
	You see Rumble right now, right?
	Yep.
	That would get...
	No, okay, still there.
	Terry Lake, Arizona Live.
	Come on!
	That was...
	This one.
	Okay.
	Turn that off for a second.
	And...
	Okay, what the...
	I think you'd be more like 20, Your Honor.
	Okay, they're just doing time, people.
	We didn't miss anything.
	Okay.
	But...
	They carry the burden.
	So I'm not going to hold you to 15, 20. If they have 20, you do 15. If you want five rebuttal at the end, they give it to you.
	Are they going to be done for the day?
	I don't think so.
	I think he's just scheduling how long closing arguments will be allowed, including rebuttal.
	I got a kid who's getting mighty, mighty frustrated.
	He was the sick kid.
	Yeah, he's feeling better, but he's been distracted by the TV a lot today.
	I think that's all I've got for you tonight.
	I can let you go.
	Oh, okay.
	Is there anything absolutely essential for my corporate board of classes?
	The judge looks terrified.
	You had one job, people.
	Thank you all.
	I'll see you tomorrow morning.
	What?
	Oh, you're right.
	Barris isn't going to be tonight.
	Nope.
	Probably good to consider wrapping, you know, get time to see whether they're going to add anybody tomorrow morning.
	Man, was that judge quiet.
	Hello?
	How's everybody doing, everybody?
	Just so you know, Force, I use audio equalization.
	I guess, okay, I think it's over now.
	They probably shut down because that's the end of it.
	I can't make the audio any louder on the stream.
	This is the same stuff we have every time there's a live stream.
	Let me just make sure.
	What's it?
	A Cary Lake.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	That went better than I thought it was going to go, in all respects.
	I thought...
	Agreed.
	I thought they did a very good presentation.
	Their main three witnesses were home run witnesses.
	Thanks in part to the incompetent and inept cross-examination by the state.
	And I thought it was great for them to get to finish on him.
	Lee, let that be the emotional, resonating thing to sink on for the court overnight.
	You know, he's got an unusual debacle that a guy just like him just said was an unusual debacle, that there's cover-ups, that there's intentionality, that there's critical documents missing that they still haven't produced.
	So the state needs to come in and hit a home run tomorrow to get him to back off of doing something.
	I mean, I think it would still be a shock to me to see a court be willing, this court be willing to have a re-vote.
	But at a minimum, there might be some real scolding language about what happened in Maricopa County in the court's order that would by itself establish a basis for other election reforms moving forward.
	But at a minimum, today's hearing was a big success for Cary Lake, and frankly, a borderline complete debacle for the inept state, county, and hops.
	Robert, when you get a chance, I mean, if you didn't watch Richard this morning, his whole testimony, go watch his testimony, because you'll see, like, the state employees performed worse than the experts and...
	All of them.
	The plaintiff's witnesses, they were defensive, incompetent.
	And you'll see the way they were refusing to answer pretty clear-cut questions.
	Yeah, they were evasive.
	I mean, there's multiple allegations that Richard lied on the stand, not only about the PAC, but about other things.
	So he may have set himself up.
	He clearly didn't take it seriously.
	He didn't even come back for the hearing.
	You know, he's on vacation.
	He didn't even dress up for it.
	Didn't even go to a lawyer's office for it.
	Just appeared in a t-shirt in his condo, party condo, vacation condo in Panama.
	It's embarrassing, Panama City, wherever it was.
	It's an embarrassment.
	Just an utter, it shows their arrogance.
	It shows their contempt.
	It shows their lack of integrity.
	It shows their lack of independence.
	You know, everything that they've been accused of, they themselves prove today by their own course of conduct, by their own witnesses, and their own cross-examination.
	And you had three very credible, very respectable, very trustworthy witnesses for Carrie Lake, step forward and handle.
	The inept cross-examination that took place, the state did not have an answer for what really happened on Election Day with the tabulators and the printers.
	They did not really have an answer for why they made representations that, as the lawyer explained, couldn't be accurate, that smack of a cover-up by the Maricopa County supervisors.
	And frankly, lies.
	That is what they really did.
	All evidence...
	That was elicited by the defense.
	I mean, at the end, there's like, you don't know there was a bunch of ballots that changed the election.
	He's like, I have no doubt that this caused this alone, this issue alone of tabulators and printers caused the election that without it, Carrie Lake is the winner.
	I have no doubt about that.
	I mean, that evidence wasn't induced by Carrie Lake's people.
	It was induced by the defense.
	So the defense just complete disaster, complete debacle.
	All they're praying for at this point is the court's bias against overturning an election.
	That is all they have going for them.
	Not the facts, not the law.
	Now for tomorrow, I might be in transit, but I think I'll be able to get a stream.
	I'll get it set up.
	So I'll run it like I did with the commission and I'll try to just pop in and out wherever I am because I've resolved in as much as I'm a tech noob.
	I've resolved my stream yard issues so I can just bring myself in as a guest in transit.
	So I'll do that.
	I'll be in transit too.
	Yeah, that's a problem.
	So I'll flip you the link if either of us can pop in and out, but I'll have it running so that we can at least, we can have it memorialized.
	They better come back with some ace witnesses, the state and the county and Hobbs, or they've lost the hearing.
	The only question is, does the bias of the court to not overturn an election prevent any meaningful remedy for Carrie Lake?
	That's the only question at this point, because the hearing has proven, in my view, Carrie Lake's arguments.
	And they're going to say, well, it wasn't intentional.
	You know, just shake up the toners.
	It was fit to shrink, or whatever, the shrink to fit.
	Incompetence at best, but that type of incompetence is like fractal incompetence.
	I'm sure the judge is disappointed because he didn't hear persuasive arguments.
	He didn't hear...
	And this is what a lot of us said about 2020.
	If we would have been allowed a meaningful evidentiary hearing, you would have seen what the real issues were.
	And they got to hide behind having no...
	There's a reason none of these judges wanted to have a hearing, an evidentiary hearing on the merits.
	They didn't want one.
	Because they knew the results would make their decisions look bad and the election officials look bad.
	At a minimum, what comes out of this is a complete disaster of how Maricopa County is running its elections.
	That will put massive pressure for meaningful further election reform in Arizona and hopefully in other parts of the country as people see that this is terrible.
	This is disgraceful.
	We're supposed to be the leading democracy in the world.
	It's a clown show.
	Robert?
	Viva and Barnes, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, love you guys, Go Sox.
	Ashton, thank you very much.
	We got the same from the locals chat as well, same good wishes.
	Oh yeah, well there were a bunch of, I'll read one here, John McGarvey, Viva, I want to hear the voicemail.
	Go?
	No, I was dictating a tweet where I said this is going worse than anybody could have imagined.
	And then the stream went dead, so I thought maybe Katie Hobbs called YouTube and said, take down the stream.
	I'm joking.
	Glad to hear to give your input on this, Robert.
	That's a $2 tip from Mighty Pit, I think.
	And then USA Now has a great montage.
	I'm going to go sniff and clip some highlights.
	And maybe even specifically the lie about the pack.
	That's going to come back to haunt him.
	So stay tuned.
	I'll get it up and running tomorrow, even if I'm not going to be in it for the better part of it.
	Robert, we will talk soon to them later.
	Everybody, one heck of a stream, one heck of a day.
	We're at 7 hours and 53 minutes.
	My butt hurts so much.
	All right, I'm going to go try to spend some time with the family.
	Robert, I'll see you soon.
	Everybody in the chat.
	Thank you very much, everyone.
	Peace out.

▲