ADVERTISEMENT

Kari Lake WINS Right to Bring Election Fraud Case to Trial!

So you are ok with politicians gaming the system to find a way to win at all costs? I am not ok with. Votes should not be thrown out because state officials do something wrong.

That's not gaming the system that's following the rules.
The courts asked Lake if breaking chain of custody would change the votes. They said no. so she doesn't think the votes were impacted, she just wants them gone because it brings down the total. Gaming the system smh.
That doesn't make sense and any attorney using that logic should be disbarred. If a ballot doesn't follow chain of custody it is in fact not a vote at all. Full stop.


You are a gators fan, would you be ok if the gators won a championship. Then after the game, the other team say well there was holding on that TD, there was an illegal formation on that TD, that should've been a PI on that TD. So we will toss out those 3 TDs and now Ohio State is the winner.
If the rules say an after game review can overturn the game and we did in fact use an illegal formation, I would absolutely not be ok, but if you can't win by following the rules, you're a cheater.

That would be winning at all costs. Are you OK with that?

I would take a loss over a technicality over a tainted win every time.


That is what Lake is don't. She is looking for anyway to find a way to get more votes than Hobbs...AFTER the election.
So if they can in fact find legitimate votes for Lake, you don't think they should count because it's after the election? And that's not voter suppression?

But to your original comment, you can see why it is a form of voter suppression? After they vote, lets find a way to not make them count!
No, it's not. Voter suppression is preventing registered voters from voting or not counting their votes because they aren't for your candidate. If you can prove state officials acted in concert with the Republican Party or the Lake campaign that absolutely would be voter suppression. But if I recall correctly the state officials aren't pubs. I do support firing them regardless for not doing their job.

The reason I narrowed in on this and none of the other points you've made is because chain of custody has to be ironclad. If you can't prove your evidence was with who you say it was when you say it was, the mere opportunity to tamper with the evidence taints it in a criminal trial. I have seen more than one slam dunk case tossed without prejudice because of procedural chain of custody errors like a name but no signature. Our government is at least as important as whether or not someone gets convicted of a crime. Or it should be.
 
I've been down this road with you before kalim.

Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts.

You can say "there is no evidence" until you're blue in the face. That won't change the fact. You're into narrative, and you always have been..
From the JUDGE;

"Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot"

"Second, as Mr. Sonnenklar himself admitted, he did not personally observe anything that allowed him to support his intuition that someone had engaged in intentional misconduct"

"Because Plaintiff’s expert agreed that the forms which are the basis for this claim were generated, Plaintiff cannot point to their absence writ large as a violation of the EPM"

"Particularly where Plaintiff’s own witness on this point lacks personal knowledge of the intent of the alleged bad actor, admits that Defendants did in fact generate the documents they were required to, and otherwise affirms the County’s compliance with election processes"

"Plaintiff’s expert on this point admitted that the voters who suffered from tabulator rejections would nevertheless have their votes counted. This, at a minimum, means that the actual impact element of Count II could not be proven. The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the election"

"While this Court (in the absence of controlling authority) is reticent to state that statistical evidence is always insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate a direct effect on the outcome of an election, a statistical analysis that shows that the current winner had a good chance of winning anyway is decidedly insufficient"

The Judge listed her claims then broke them down. See I actually read the judge's ruling. I am sure you didn't. The judge said that she was unable to provide clear evidence that the printer impacted the votes. Her own witness said that the votes were counted. Her own witness said that the proper documentation was generated for chain of custody. Her own witness said that there was no evidence of voters being turned away. Then her own witness said that his statistics calculated that Hobbs had a good chance of winning anyway.

He did more than rule that there was not clear evidence. He actually destroyed her evidence. I am not going by any narrative. I am going by what was presented at trial. I feel very confidence that you got your opinion from Fox news/Newsmax or Bannon.
 
It's not gaming the system. Dammit man...those standards are there for a reason.

At some level, an election must have standards, agree? Enforcement of those standards isn't racism. Otherwise it could be conceivably acceptable for you to write Hobbs on a sheet of paper, ball that sheet of paper up, open the polling stations door, and throw that SOB at the feet of the poll workers while screaming, "if you don't count that, it's some Jim Crow bullsh1t!!!"

Why do I debate with you?
I never said anything was racism...never once
 
From the JUDGE;

"Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot"

"Second, as Mr. Sonnenklar himself admitted, he did not personally observe anything that allowed him to support his intuition that someone had engaged in intentional misconduct"

"Because Plaintiff’s expert agreed that the forms which are the basis for this claim were generated, Plaintiff cannot point to their absence writ large as a violation of the EPM"

"Particularly where Plaintiff’s own witness on this point lacks personal knowledge of the intent of the alleged bad actor, admits that Defendants did in fact generate the documents they were required to, and otherwise affirms the County’s compliance with election processes"

"Plaintiff’s expert on this point admitted that the voters who suffered from tabulator rejections would nevertheless have their votes counted. This, at a minimum, means that the actual impact element of Count II could not be proven. The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the election"

"While this Court (in the absence of controlling authority) is reticent to state that statistical evidence is always insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate a direct effect on the outcome of an election, a statistical analysis that shows that the current winner had a good chance of winning anyway is decidedly insufficient"

The Judge listed her claims then broke them down. See I actually read the judge's ruling. I am sure you didn't. The judge said that she was unable to provide clear evidence that the printer impacted the votes. Her own witness said that the votes were counted. Her own witness said that the proper documentation was generated for chain of custody. Her own witness said that there was no evidence of voters being turned away. Then her own witness said that his statistics calculated that Hobbs had a good chance of winning anyway.

He did more than rule that there was not clear evidence. He actually destroyed her evidence. I am not going by any narrative. I am going by what was presented at trial. I feel very confidence that you got your opinion from Fox news/Newsmax or Bannon.

I've been down this road with you before kalim.

Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts.

You can say "there is no evidence" until you're blue in the face. That won't change the fact. You're into narrative, and you always have been.

Working on time management. It's a goal for me in 2023.
 
I'm not going to say that I know anything about this outside this thread but if there was no evidence of voters being turned away or being refused a ballot then doesn't that negate your claim of voter suppression? I'm asking that first sentence leaves a bit to be desired via a vis sentence structure.
 
That's not gaming the system that's following the rules.

That doesn't make sense and any attorney using that logic should be disbarred. If a ballot doesn't follow chain of custody it is in fact not a vote at all. Full stop.



If the rules say an after game review can overturn the game and we did in fact use an illegal formation, I would absolutely not be ok, but if you can't win by following the rules, you're a cheater.

That would be winning at all costs. Are you OK with that?

I would take a loss over a technicality over a tainted win every time.



So if they can in fact find legitimate votes for Lake, you don't think they should count because it's after the election? And that's not voter suppression?


No, it's not. Voter suppression is preventing registered voters from voting or not counting their votes because they aren't for your candidate. If you can prove state officials acted in concert with the Republican Party or the Lake campaign that absolutely would be voter suppression. But if I recall correctly the state officials aren't pubs. I do support firing them regardless for not doing their job.

The reason I narrowed in on this and none of the other points you've made is because chain of custody has to be ironclad. If you can't prove your evidence was with who you say it was when you say it was, the mere opportunity to tamper with the evidence taints it in a criminal trial. I have seen more than one slam dunk case tossed without prejudice because of procedural chain of custody errors like a name but no signature. Our government is at least as important as whether or not someone gets convicted of a crime. Or it should be.
"not counting their votes because they aren't for your candidate." Isn't that what Lake is doing? She is literally targeting areas that gave Hobbs great results to bring down Hobbs total.

Also, Lake isn't trying to find votes, she is trying to subtract votes.
 
"not counting their votes because they aren't for your candidate." Isn't that what Lake is doing? She is literally targeting areas that gave Hobbs great results to bring down Hobbs total.
As I said before if they shouldn't have been counted before then I'm fine with that. And if the actions of an election official invalidated ballot or ballots, they don't count and that official should be fired and if there is evidence of collusion every single person involved should be prosecuted.

Also, Lake isn't trying to find votes, she is trying to subtract votes.
And if they can be subtracted legally they should be. How is Hobbs taking advantage of election procedural errors OK but Lake doing it is gaming the system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaFan1137
Exactly! You can't debate me, when I proved things that the actually judge said. Just say you were wrong and move on. Have a great day.

Incorrect. There was no need for a new reply based on your reply. Everything required to refute you was in that previous post from me.

Hence "time management."
 
I'm not going to say that I know anything about this outside this thread but if there was no evidence of voters being turned away or being refused a ballot then doesn't that negate your claim of voter suppression? I'm asking that first sentence leaves a bit to be desired via a vis sentence structure.
Lake own witnesses said that there is no evidence of that. Yet, Lake is still saying that on right wing TV because she doesn't trust that right wing media will actually read the transcript or watch it. So disrespectful, smh.

BUT if that was true, it is 1000000% voter suppression!
 
Lake own witnesses said that there is no evidence of that. Yet, Lake is still saying that on right wing TV because she doesn't trust that right wing media will actually read the transcript or watch it. So disrespectful, smh.

BUT if that was true, it is 1000000% voter suppression!
But you just said it wasn't true and nobody in this thread or anywhere else disputes turning away voters or denying them ballots is voter suppression.
 
"not counting their votes because they aren't for your candidate." Isn't that what Lake is doing? She is literally targeting areas that gave Hobbs great results to bring down Hobbs total.

Also, Lake isn't trying to find votes, she is trying to subtract votes.
She's following the law. Be like Kari.

And you're right, she isn't targeting areas other than Maricopa County. Know who else isn't? Katie Hobbs.

That tells you that there were NOT chain of custody issues in those areas. That's why they aren't being targeted. Not because Kari won them. Your spin actually makes Hobbs' sound like an idiot: If there were COC issues in areas that she lost, she would be a fool not to bring them to light.

And the funny thing? If those issues existed, Kari would be the one to bring them to light first. Cause republicans understand that having election integrity is more important than winning a single election.

Wish dems understood that.
 
Lake own witnesses said that there is no evidence of that. Yet, Lake is still saying that on right wing TV because she doesn't trust that right wing media will actually read the transcript or watch it. So disrespectful, smh.

BUT if that was true, it is 1000000% voter suppression!
You do realize you are lying to people that actually watched the trial, right? Something you didn't do, right?

I will never understand people like you.
 
The judges own words, that you posted, supported my position. You clearly cherry picked which words to hear.

Whatever, as always you're a huge waste of time and I'm out.
"Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts."

He didn't acknowledge the evidence, he just acknowledged what she presented at court and concluded that it wasn't evidence. He said that it wasn't there or accurate based on her witnesses. He clearly refuted her evidence. Which is a court way of saying there wasn't evidence, hence his words of "not clear and convincing".

I didn't cherry pick anything, I highlighted his conclusions. Just read his ruling and I am sure you will agree but the problem is, you already put your foot in your mouth.
 
But you just said it wasn't true and nobody in this thread or anywhere else disputes turning away voters or denying them ballots is voter suppression.
I am not sure what you are talking about. I never said that it wasn't voter suppression. I just said that Lake lied about it. I don't think anyone said it wouldn't be voter suppression. My only debate was going after votes AFTER they were casted.
 
I am not sure what you are talking about. I never said that it wasn't voter suppression. I just said that Lake lied about it. I don't think anyone said it wouldn't be voter suppression. My only debate was going after votes AFTER they were casted.
I'm pretty sure I'm no longer smart enough for this debate. I took issue with chain of custody issues being framed as an illegimate tactic and I believe I've explained that as well as I'm able.
 
"Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts."

Jesus H kalim....the very first line.

"Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts."

Yet you said there was NO evidence.

Just stop man. Stop friggin digging. You're in a hole of your own making.
 
"Judge Thompson acknowledged the evidence. He ruled that Lake’s team failed to prove intent and that they had not proven that the election outcome was changed by those acts."

This is EXACTLY what I've said from the beginning btw.

Holy hell you are so frustrating.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gatordad3
He didn't acknowledge the evidence, he just acknowledged what she presented at court and concluded that it wasn't evidence. He said that it wasn't there or accurate based on her witnesses. He clearly refuted her evidence. Which is a court way of saying there wasn't evidence, hence his words of "not clear and convincing".
This is why we let you keep talking, cause eventually you always step in it.

At first you claimed she presented no evidence. Now you finally tell the truth: She presented evidence, the judge ignored it.

That's what we've said all along.


 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT