This right here baffles me.
The chain of custody documents are one of the most important pieces of information needed to set this entire situation straight.
Yet they are nowhere to be found.
The auditors certainly don’t have them—even though these documents were requested in the subpoena.
I remember this being an issue during the initial election inquiries last year in a number of counties. Chain of custody documents were either missing or counties refused to hand them over.
Now Ken Bennett, the director of the Arizona audit is saying the same thing: he can’t get his hands on those documents.
Take a look:
The Gateway Pundit relayed Ken Bennett's words:
Jordan: Do you know if this information was deleted before or after the subpoena?
Bennett: I don’t know.
Jordan: Can you tell us about the other issues you’ve seen with the ballot chain of custody and anomalies in the organization?
Bennett: Well we still don’t have the chain of custody documents that the county must have kept between when the ballots were put in the warehouse after the November election to when they were delivered to us on April 22nd. We know that one of the county officials tweeted out a photo of some of the ballot pallets being loaded into the back of a truck as though they were ready to deliver them to the Senate. And so we would like to see if their chain of custody documents between November and April include movement of the ballots like that. We have complete chain of custody from the day that they brought the ballots to us, while we’ve been holding the ballots. But we’re still looking for the chain of custody documentation between the election and April.
The Arizona Mirror took the typical left wing response:
Retaining and preserving documents, described as maintaining the chain of custody of critical records, including ballots, is a required legal precursor to any federal or state law enforcement investigation. These include allegations about the conduct of an election, violations of federal election laws such as the Voting Rights Act, or voters’ constitutional rights. If documents are not securely maintained by election officials within a valid chain of custody, there is no basis to establish the genuineness of the records in question necessary for prosecution.
The U.S. Department of Justice details this requirement over seven pages in its Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, noting that the “requirements of this federal law place the retention and safekeeping duties squarely on the shoulders of election officers.”
This chain of custody has now been broken in Maricopa County. The state Senate and its consultants have physical possession of nearly 2.1 million November election ballots, meaning that Arizona election officials are no longer “retaining and preserving” election ballots. After the Senate completes its work and the ballots have been handled by an untold number of individuals employed by the state Senate or its consultant, it will be impossible for anyone to confirm or refute the results.