You really should read more... 🤣
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...tify-in-kari-lake-election-trial/69744675007/
Kari Lake 'excited' over election trial but Katie Hobbs won't have to testify
Ray Stern
Arizona Republic
Kari Lake WINS Right to Bring Election Fraud Case to Trial!
- Thread starter kjfreeze
- Start date
You really should read more... 🤣
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...tify-in-kari-lake-election-trial/69744675007/
Kari Lake 'excited' over election trial but Katie Hobbs won't have to testify
Ray Stern
Arizona Republic
Yeah because nobody can confirm Lake's legal claims...they're just speculation
The burden of "proof" is on Lake...not Hobbs
Key part of that testimony...
"Based on what I saw on Election Day, there’s no question in my mind…"
That doesn't prove anything...that's his opinion
Based on what he saw...he could also have no question in his mind little green men voted also 🤣
This is the bar that the evidence must meet...unsubstantiated opinions don't meet the bar
Kori Lorick is how I would pronounce Kari Lake after a couple o Kahluas.
Tell me you’re not as much of an alcoholic as me without telling me you’re not as much of an alcoholic as me.
We can always count on the dems here to attempt a timely deflection when breaking news drops that makes their side look bad.
Kari Lake wraps up trial with no clear evidence to overturn election
Lake's team needed to meet the high bar set by a Maricopa County judge, suggesting Arizona is likely to certify the election results soon.
www.newsweek.com
It's Newsweek, which is equivalent to Vanity Fair, but to be honest we knew the judge wouldn't decertify and call for another election. Judges don't like BLM and Antifa camping on their doorsteps with assassination attempts. The ball is in Arizona's court about fixing their flawed election process. They had two years to fix it and failed miserably.
I get more kicks out of reading a graphic novel than I would from Newsweek.
It's not very challenging. It's so thin, you can read it cover to cover in one sitting on the throne. 😂
The Just Move On crowd is anxious to see DeSantis get cheated out of an election next? LOL
Like I said...Don't get your hopes up
Kari Lake's lawsuit over defeat in Arizona governor's race thrown out by judge
Kari Lake asked a judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in a key county.
www.cbsnews.com
Like I said...Don't get your hopes up
Kari Lake's lawsuit over defeat in Arizona governor's race thrown out by judge
Kari Lake asked a judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in a key county.
Or...like we all said. Even those who said Lake’s legal team did an excellent job said that it was very unlikely that she would win this case.
We never did.Like I said...Don't get your hopes up
Kari Lake's lawsuit over defeat in Arizona governor's race thrown out by judge
Kari Lake asked a judge to either declare her the winner or order a revote in a key county.
But the evidence was compelling.
Sorry to see it, but Az could well end up becoming a suburb of Californication, as people continue to move to the still FREE states back east.... 🤓
There is no evidence. Ill never understand some of you.
That's simply not true. You're only paying attention to the narrative.
Evidence was submitted and it was compelling. Lake's team had to prove intent and that she would have won if not for the intentional cheating. That's where the judge ruled that her team fell short.
That last tweet was the witnesses Day One testimony. The next day he would claim that he DID know of 19 inch images being printed on 20 inch ballots and that in Maricopa Co it had HAPPENED FOR THE LAST THREE ELECTIONS. Oh and he also testified that the image size HAD BEEN INTENTIONALLY CHANGED (remember Lake had to prove intent), but he added it was done by THREE ROGUE TECHNICIANS.
As @fatman76 said, the judge was getting death threats prior to his ruling, so we had a good idea that the ruling wouldn't be the lawful one.
No, they provided their THEORY. They had their math guy from a polling company that isn't accurate enough to be credited by other polling companies to testify that he calculated a win for Lake. Hobbs team then provided their own polling guy. That is no different than the state having their own psychiatrist and the defense having theirs. Just two theories but nothing you can really prove.
Then they tried to argue chain of custody stuff, which is a way to get heavy democratic areas votes thrown out (a form of voter suppression), that the county denied. So, another theory with no evidence.
Then she tried to argue the printer issue that changed the font size, which only impact about 1200 votes per the county and those votes WERE counted. So, a bad and pointless argument.
The judge threw out most of her theories before the trial started. The fact that you have like 12 reasons why there was voter fraud, should be enough to tell the common person that she is throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
The judge ultimately ruled that she didn't provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud or enough fraud that would give her nearly 17.000 votes.
So, for any of you people to say that she provided clear evidence, is just inaccurate. She provided a theory and speculation.
Enforcing chain of custody is voter suppression.
Now I've heard everything. Somebody call the Innocence Project, turns out bad chain of custody is a perfectly good reason to put someone on Death Row.
Now I've heard everything. Somebody call the Innocence Project, turns out bad chain of custody is a perfectly good reason to put someone on Death Row.
Yes, it is, it is a way to get votes thrown out. It is telling people, that even after you vote, we will try to find a way to make your vote not count. This was done in the 60s (jim crow). They would say, well you voted but you didn't do this, or that. Well the county you voted in, didn't do this or that, so your vote won't count. The focus is always in the areas where there was high turnout against you. In the 60s that would discourage people from voting because they believed, even if they did, someone would find a way to not make it count. See the voter suppression?
Lake isn't arguing cheating, she is looking for a way to cut votes from Hobbs
Did Lake look into "enforcing chain of custody" in areas that she won? The answer is no, and can you guess why?
It's like the dems here are in an abusive relationship with their party. They walk out of the house every day with a black eye, we tell them they are being abused and gotta leave him, they defend him blindly. If we press, they attack us.
Look at how ray ray got upset when I pointed out how dems coddle perverts. He KNOWS deep down that what he's doing is wrong, that's why he had the visceral reaction to my starting the thread. Lashing out at me cause he's really angry at himself cause he knows what he's doing is wrong.
Ah well. Like @jfegaly says you can lead the donkey to water....
I provided facts that was presented from both sides. You said she presented evidence. Please provide the evidence that you said she had. I must have missed it because all I saw was "he say/she say" and her side theory of why there had to be cheating.
Are you insane? That was the entire basis of her case. That's why the judge stated you have to prove intent. That's why she had witnesses testify TO INTENT.
Her case was to show cheating, and she made her case with evidence. It's like you get called out for being wrong, then try to backdate lies to prove your spin. Every time.
See? Literally just lying on the fly.
I will NEVER understand why the dem posters here think lying is completely acceptable behavior. It has ALWAYS baffled me.
Everything ray ray posts is a lie. @BSC911 has lied about his entire life. @kalimgoodman lies in every exchange. Even the libs that don't lie constantly will still post an occasional lie, like @grandhavendiddy and @sadgator claiming Trump said something, then when you post Trump's claim that clearly shows he did NOT say that, they still claim he did.
This is not normal behavior. And in all my years of posting on message boards like this, I have NEVER seen a single conservative engage in this behavior.
And at least 90% of the libs do.
I'll never understand it. I was always taught lying is unacceptable. Libs are obviously taught that it's just fine.
The reason I used such an extreme example is precisely because if you didn't do such and such, the evidence is invalid.
If a vote can legally be cut from the count, and I said legally, it should be. Because it is in fact cheating. If I forget to sign my ballot, my ballot is invalid even though it's my ballot and I did in fact vote and I mailed it on time. Because I didn't follow the correct procedure and procedure is how we certify a ballot. If someone said "oh he just forgot to sign it" and signed it for me or counted it anyways then why pretend we have fair elections.
If Miss Hobbs wanted to "cut votes" because she felt chain of custody was broken I would feel the same way.
Take your blinders off for a second.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
And there it is. If the law benefits my side, I support it. If the law doesn't help me, it shouldn't be enforced.
Situational ethics. This is what it's like to be a dem. This is EXACTLY why I will never be one.
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?
