Arizona: Dominion refuses to comply with subpoena.

[asher553]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/breaking-az-audit-director-ken-bennett-dominion-refuses-comply-subpoena-turn-password-maricopa-county-machines/

'The fact that the County does not have system administrators who have administrative access to the Dominion voting machines is a big concern. By allowing Dominion to have the administration access only, the County has basically turned over the system to the Dominion voting machine system people. There is no IT control here because that’s been ceded to Dominion. ...

In his interview with OAN Ken Bennett said Dominion is refusing to comply with the State Senate’s subpoena and is hiding the second password for their machines.'

Comments

[ndrosen]

Imprimis, given that the source is notorious for fake news, I don’t know whether the situation is remotely as described. Secundus, even assuming that the report is essentially accurate, I am not sure what legitimate purpose providing the password now would accomplish. If Dominion did not commit fraud, the password would probably not enable the authorities to establish its innocence with certainty, and given that these are Trumpublicans, I would not trust them to proclaim Dominion’s innocence if they found no evidence of fraud. If Dominion did commit fraud, they probably did not leave a trail, or else by now they could have used their sysadmin powers to erase the trail. Furthermore, if the investigators announced that they had found evidence of the ballot count being altered, I would not trust them, given that belief in Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen is a Republican shibboleth.

And please remember, I did not always despise the GOP.

[marycatelli]

Your argument rests on a confused view of the relative authority of the court and the company.

[ndrosen]

I beg to differ. I am not a lawyer, and did not get into the legal questions of how far the court’s authority extends, what the company might do to quash a subpoena, whether a subpoena can be simply ignored, etc. My argument does it rest on a confused view, or any view, of such questions. Instead, it addresses different questions.

[marycatelli]

Which ones?

[ndrosen]

Whether the investigators could be trusted, whether the sysadmin password could be used to discover fraud if fraud was actually committed, and whether the sysadmin password could be used to create a fake trail of supposed fraud. Oh, and whether an article in Gateway Pundit could be trusted in the slightest.

[marycatelli]

Those are not relevant.

[ndrosen]

Why not? And relevant to what?