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.
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.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.
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.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 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?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.
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.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!
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.