The LIES and Just how Gullible we are supposed to be.

I ask and discuss many thing things with AI, Very often I get feed back on a topi from GROK, then I take those results and go over to ChatGPT and cross check what I have, and Then sometimes Claude comes and helps polish the Apple before it is erved. I tell you this because the is just GROK and I, and I chose GROK because it is more HAWKISH, it is Elon’s baby and it get’s a lot of it’s algorythm strucksructure from Musk and X so I expect it to be biased because of the datasets it draws on first. That very fact maked the following even more alarming. This isn’t a quick read, although it isn’t a deap read either. It does give insight to some of the ‘what the heck are they doing, behind the scenes though’.

The DOJ has seized these old records, just what can they hope to claim from them: the actual physical ballots from 2020 no longer exist. Arizona law requires ballots to be destroyed two years after an election They went straight for the Cyber Ninja files, the most discredited, procedural compromised, legally indefensible trove of election data in modern American history.

The DOJ (via FBI grand jury subpoena) didn’t seize physical 2020 ballots from Arizona—they couldn’t, because those were legally destroyed years ago. Arizona law (A.R.S. 16-624 and related retention rules) requires ballots from federal elections to be destroyed after two years. Maricopa County’s were held a bit longer due to litigation and the audit but were shredded in August 2023. Multiple sources, including county officials, confirm: “They’re gone.”

What the FBI actually obtained (late last week, per Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen) is digital data from the 2021 Arizona Senate’s partisan audit—the one run by Cyber Ninjas. This was subpoenaed from the state Senate, not Maricopa County directly. It’s the “Cyber Ninja files” you’re referencing: a trove of electronic records the firm compiled during its six-month review of Maricopa County’s ~2.1 million ballots.
What exactly is in these files?

• Digital scans and photos of every ballot (the audit team imaged them).

• Voter rolls and related voter data.

• Data pulled directly from Dominion Voting Systems machines, ballot tabulators, and the county’s election management system (including access logs).

• Tally sheets the auditors used to track votes and flag “anomalies.”

• Other supporting materials the Senate held from the audit process.

These are copies and derivatives created during the audit—not the originals. The physical ballots that generated them no longer exist.What can the DOJ realistically hope to “claim” from them?In theory, investigators could:

• Re-analyze the digital ballot images and machine data for the specific irregularities Cyber Ninjas originally alleged (e.g., supposed duplicate ballots, noncitizen voting, chain-of-custody gaps, or Dominion machine issues).

• Cross-reference voter rolls against the ballot scans to probe eligibility claims.

• Use system logs or tally discrepancies to argue procedural problems in 2020.

This fits the broader context: the Trump administration is expanding probes into 2020 results (similar subpoena/seizure actions in Georgia’s Fulton County for actual ballots). Officials tied to the inquiry (like Kurt Olsen) have long pushed 2020-related theories. Proponents might hope to surface “evidence” justifying election reforms, voter ID rules, or challenges to past outcomes ahead of 2026 midterms.But here’s the reality check on their valueThe Cyber Ninjas audit was already the most scrutinized and criticized election review in recent history—even its own leaders privately called parts of the recount “screwy,” and it ultimately confirmed Biden’s win in Arizona (finding more votes for him in some tallies, with no widespread fraud proven). County officials (Republican and Democratic), courts, prior hand recounts, and independent audits all rejected its conclusions as unreliable.

Experts who watched the audit firsthand say the digital files are “fatally flawed” for any serious probe:

• Auditors used pens while handling/photographing ballots (tampering risk).

• They kept multiple inconsistent tally sheets per batch.

• Tabulator data was shipped to an unsecured cabin in Montana for analysis.

• They misread routine election processes as fraud (e.g., mail ballots delivered in person).

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes have both dismissed confidence in anything derived from it. Election tech consultants call it “invalid data” that would lead to “inaccurate conclusions.” Even the audit’s Senate liaison (a Republican) found only minor, irrelevant county errors. Arizona AG Kris Mayes labeled the whole federal effort “weaponization… in service of crackpots and lies.”

Bottom line: Without the destroyed physical ballots, the DOJ has second-hand digital copies from a procedurally compromised, partisan process that itself couldn’t prove fraud despite months of access. Any claims built on this data will face massive credibility problems in court or public scrutiny—courts have already tossed similar 2020 challenges, and experts say this material wouldn’t hold up as evidence. It might generate headlines or internal reports, but it doesn’t magically resurrect verifiable proof that survived every prior review. The physical originals are gone for good, as Arizona law required.

So realistically they can make false claims based on no existent evidence, in other words lies. but as we have seen, there is a segment of the voting population that has a tendency to believe certain partisan lies no matter what the evidence may be. By playing this loudly enough and with enough stall tactics it could be held up in court until after the elections have been held, all the while with very loud attacks on how the other side is forcefully trying to cover up the truth.

Yes, your assessment aligns closely with how critics and election experts are framing this development. The Cyber Ninjas audit data—now in FBI hands—is widely regarded as unreliable and procedurally tainted from the start. Multiple independent reviews (including the audit itself) confirmed Biden’s win in Arizona, with no evidence of widespread fraud. Yet the files could still serve as raw material for selective interpretation or misrepresentation. Potential for “False Claims” or Exaggerated Narratives

• Cherry-picking anomalies: The data includes digital ballot images, machine logs, and tally sheets that Cyber Ninjas flagged as suspicious (e.g., supposed “duplicates,” chain-of-custody issues, or Dominion glitches). Even though those claims were debunked repeatedly—often because they stemmed from misunderstandings of standard processes—investigators or political actors could highlight isolated discrepancies out of context to suggest irregularities.

• No physical ballots to verify: Without the originals (destroyed per Arizona law in 2023), any analysis relies on second-hand digital copies created under compromised conditions (e.g., unsecured handling, inconsistent tallies). Experts, including those cited in recent reporting, describe the material as “fatally flawed” and incapable of producing credible new evidence.

  Amplification via media and rhetoric: Loud, repeated assertions of “new proof” or “cover-ups” can resonate with segments of the electorate predisposed to distrust official results, regardless of counter-evidence. This mirrors patterns seen in 2020–2024 challenges, where claims persisted in certain circles despite court dismissals and audits.

Timing and Stall Tactics Your point about dragging things out until after elections is a real concern raised by observers. Here’s how that could play out:

• Grand jury/investigative phase: Subpoenas (like the one to the Arizona Senate, complied with in early March 2026) keep the probe active without immediate conclusions. Leaks, selective releases, or public statements can fuel narratives for months.

• Litigation delays: If the DOJ (or related actors) pursues civil or criminal angles—perhaps targeting county officials or pushing for “reforms”—courts could see motions, appeals, and discovery fights that extend well into or past 2026 midterms. Precedent exists: many 2020 cases lingered despite quick dismissals on merits.

• Parallel political pressure: Public attacks framing resistance (e.g., from Arizona AG Kris Mayes or county officials calling it “unserious” or “weaponized”) as suppression of truth can energize bases and justify further probes. Recent coverage notes this fits a broader Trump administration push on “election integrity,” including similar actions in Georgia and voter-roll demands in multiple states.

Counterpoints and Limits – Courts have historically rejected 2020 fraud claims when evidence is scrutinized—over 60 cases dismissed, including by Trump-appointed judges. Any attempt to use this data for formal challenges (e.g., decertification fantasies) would face steep hurdles: lack of standing, statutes of limitations, and the audit’s own failure to prove anything actionable.Still, the goal may not be courtroom victory but sustained doubt and turnout mobilization. As you’ve noted, a vocal segment accepts partisan narratives over evidence, and amplified messaging (via rallies, social media, friendly outlets) can keep the issue alive without needing ironclad proof.In short: Yes, the seized files offer thin gruel for genuine claims but plenty of fodder for persistent, evidence-light attacks—especially if timed to influence perception around upcoming elections. The physical evidence is long gone, but the political theater isn’t.