Judge just ruled against Lake. I guess U.S. Republicans or Maga’s are just going to have to learn to cheat like the Democrats. Can’t believe all these cases go for the Rats. All of the twitter files proving Trump right nothing ever happens for this side. The Arizona governor elect campaigned like Biden and hid can’t believe that judges ruling. This country is in the toilet just waiting for China to flush. Get ready for so really bad times.

Yes, it's highly unlikely that there's going to be a miraculous turnaround..............ship has lost both rudders.

MM

From what's reported, it looks like the Judge wanted Lake ta prove she woulda won the election without the vote fraud.

Impossible standard.

nothing to do with the RNC was ever MAGA , the mistake we made was ever associating the two

Don’t schit yourself, the Republicans cheated every way possible to make sure Lake, Masters, Walker and Oz did not get elected.

A female Trump is not allowed into their private club

Had a lawyer once ask me, "know what is the last thing to enter a courthouse?"

"The truth."

Ymmv

Correct

The judge ruled that there was no clear and convincing evidence of intentional misconduct.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ar...akes-challenge-to-gubernatorial-election

IDK, this is what I saw:

"After a two-day trial, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson concluded that Lake had not established that election officials’ willful misconduct was sufficient to alter the outcome of the race."

https://thelibertydaily.com/judge-rules-against-kari-lake-allows-katie-hobbs-to-steal-arizona/

We get thrown a tidbit of hope, then it’s yanked away. How depressing.

Lucy and the football,
all over again

It has to be this way
Our Courts need to show that they are corrupt before the Military can step in.

Who else believes this judge got a…, call?

Black rats have all the gu-ment jobs counting the votes.

.



Elon’s next.




.

The expert said the change was intentional by a password protected operation. The official himself admitted to changing the paper size! One official perjured himself. The entire system is blatantly corrupt. Judges bought and sold need a stronger incentive to behave themselves in a legal fashion. But who can afford to risk the consequences when no mass protests can even be imagined much less organized to revolt? The situation is getting serious beyond comprehension. McConnell and the Republican machine are totally behind it too. Democrats don't have to campaign, debate or appear in public to be elected these days. Third world countries are rioting over stuff like this. But their suffering is greater than ours .... so far. Unbelievable. The border invasion. The Ukraine lottery. Twitter twaddle. Monetary destruction. We are living the decline and fall of Western Civilization in real time. It's all an unbelievable nightmare.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...lection-lawsuit-following-two-day-trial/

If you want a primer on how the left set up the courts to be their enforcers, this is it.

If you make a claim of discrimination, you often don't have to prove that there was intentional discrimination or that actual discrimination was the cause of your harm. There's a legal theory in use called "disparate impact" and the effect of this theory is that all you have to do is show that you, as a member of a "protected class", didn't get something that you wanted (this is a simplification, of course, but it's what the practical effect is). So if you're a woman who works as a cop, you can complain that men get promoted more often than women and you will have proven your case, even if the real reason men get promoted more often is that the job requires physical strength and women tend to not be as strong as men.

Surprisingly, this theory is used to help certain groups (gays, blacks, etc.) and never to help other groups (White men, conservatives, etc.).

There's another legal theory called "res ipsa loquitur" (latin for "the thing speaks for itself"), where you don't have to provide evidence of someone or something doing harm to you, all you have to show is that you didn't cause your own injury and the person you claim to have caused it can't provide an explanation for how he wasn't responsible (again, a simplification).

While these two theories aren't used in election disputes, a court could easily employ the theories, reasoning by analogy, that if there are all sorts of errors in tabulating votes and the errors were of the nature that they likely affected the outcome of an election, the election should be voided and redone. OF COURSE you won't find smoking guns in election fraud, especially when the person engaging in the fraud controls the vote tabulation, but when you look at the patterns of who gets hurt with these "errors" and how they play out, it's pretty effing obvious that someone is behind the curtain.

I assure you that if it was a Democrat who complained about errors in vote tabulation the court would have no problem applying a form of disparate impact theory or res ipsa loquitur to call for a new election.

Fan, bring on the schit.

Fugk this slow ass descent into communist hell.

Your Government just tried to kill every man, woman, & child in America with a deadly mRNA vaccine. They even tried to mandate this shot me taken, lose your livelihood, and be locked up, or worse.

What are you going to do about it?

The judge set a standard that was almost impossible to meet. Hence the result.

War is coming. Know who and where the enemy is in your backyard.

So why didn't the many democrats that lost this time in Arizona file these same complaints?

Do you really think this Republican judge, appointed by Jan Brewer, would find in favor of the democrats, with the same "evidence" presented?

Arizona is not the Bay Area.

Are you talking about the Trump vaccine?

Funny I don't believe Trump created any vaccines. Phizer and Moderna I believe created them and Fauci pushed them.

Was there evidence of fraud in the races where the Democrats lost? You first have to have evidence of fraud to make the claim.

What the Democrats do when they lose is claim voter suppression in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that results in the federal government taking over local elections, which happens all the time. What constitutes voter suppression? Things like long lines on election day (but only if the precinct is one that has large blocks of (D) voters). Do they ever have to prove that there is "clear and convincing" evidence that there was an intent to suppress votes? LOL, no.

Judges don't want to be the one to undo a election so they will say case not proven or no standing.

Anything to not be that one,it is wrong think but it is what it is.

In Arizona they were the same precincts, some of the democrats lost.

Isn't that the what Lake claimed in court? The judge let her present her evidence to the court, apparently he didn't see clear and convincing evidence of her claim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...lection-lawsuit-following-two-day-trial/

So the standard the judge set is intent had to be proven. But there is no remedy if election officials influenced the outcome by “accident”. Ridiculous. It’s like I run over someone and claim it was an accident. And them having no remedy for liability against me.

There is precedent for setting aside an election. In fact it happened not that long ago in North Carolina where a new election was ordered. Also it happened before even in ariazona.

Arizona loves illegals, Flagstaff more than most.

Not really, Flagstaff lacks the kind of year around work that lends itself to lots of illegals. (kind of like Montanny)

Phoenix or Tucson, Marana, Coolidge, etc. has year around agriculture, construction, and esp Phoenix and Tucson have lots of landscaping, golf courses, hotels and restaurants.

And you know, the conservative Republicans that run those enterprises just don't like paying the wages that citizens want.

So they have looked the other way for a long time, while feeling more conservative in their bones.

And, they don't live in the same neighborhoods as the illegals, or compete with them for jobs, opportunities, or appointments to USMA for there kids, so it kind of works out fine, for the conservative Republicans that run this state.

Knowing the country is half full of misguided souls like this one ^^^^^ brings me no comfort at all.

Or a sit down review of his family album...

The other standard that the judge set was "clear and convincing evidence". The 1300 ballots that were accidentally printed shrink to fit were not enough to have changed the outcome of the election had they not been counted, but testimony was heard that those ballots were counted. Likewise the testimony about the 50 ballots that may have had chain of custody issues wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election if they had been thrown out. There was "speculation" put forth that there may have been more ballots with chain of custody issues but no "clear and convincing evidence" of that was presented to the court. Clear and convincing evidence is what the judge was looking to doubt the election results, had he seen it, I'm sure he would have ruled in Lake's favor and set the election aside.

No, I do not believe there is any judge that wants to be the first to cause an election to be overturned particularly in favor of the right. Career ending.

Osky

The quote was in response to a question as to why the dems who lost didn't go to court. No one alleged fraud in those races. The question of what evidence would suffice to get the litigation to the next stage is a totally different question than why dems aren't suiing.

What he said is true and has been for a long time....that is just a fact......if the repubs didn't want wets there....they wouldn't be there.....bob

Good information Remson
I look at it slightly differently and without the law school training. I see virtually NO republican judges since 90% of all attorneys are democRATs. Every conservative (republican) who goes to court has a 90% chance of losing simply because of the hidden politics of the party they are aligned with. The politics of party that are largely unseen by the general public.

As a Police Officer I was in a number of trials. Most were simple misdemeanor cases. I even had to testify at an occasional civil trial. One thing I learned was that if the complainant or witness was financially better off, or testified in a manner that let you believe they were more intelligent and honest than the suspect or accused, they 99.9% of the time lost the case. Why ?? Because we have ZERO republican (conservative) judges in Polk County. We only have leftists wearing the robe. Who were appointed and approved by the democRAT machine of the County. And the democRATs represented those people who would most likely find themselves in front of a judge, for what ever reason.

The bottom line is, if you want to win a court case whether it be criminal or civil show up looking like a poor down trodden citizen with minimal assets and abused by the "system". (the man is keeping you down) At least in Polk County you are going to skate. If it's obvious you have more assets than the person you are suing, you will lose regardless of how culpable the person being sued is. If you are a police officer and the witness's you call into court to support your case appear to be educated and have a reasonable understanding of the process and know that someone's rights have been violated and the defendant acts or looks like an uneducated "victim" of a cruel and vindictive society, you are going to lose.

We had what we called throw down cases. When we went to misdemeanor court and we had a defendant who really needed to be convicted, that person went to trial last. It seems the judges will throw out a number of cases before there is a "guilty" conviction. We just assume that the judges after a while started feeling guilty about all of the "innocent" verdicts and by the time the last case made it to the judge, our chances for a conviction greatly improved.

That is pretty much the reason I see why Donald Trump lost all of his court cases. He was a republican who had to present his case in a democRAT controlled court room. The same with Kari Lake. I hate to say it, but Kari doesn't stand a chance. I really think she had a great case, but she is presenting it in front of democRAT appointed judges.

She doesn't stand a chance and 90% of Americans think judges are honest and fair. In reality, they are tied to their political party "rules of behavior" that too many people know nothing about. Until the conservatives take back the courtrooms and the ability to appoint conservative judges to wear the robe. We (America) are going to continue to lose. There is nothing accidental about the whole process.

kwg

I hope she can appeal on up the line. Sooner or later there must be a judge that will be honest. It should be East to understand the voters were robbed of their opportunity to vote and the count was rigged. 26k votes should be thrown out to start with.

Remsen, the district in Scottsdale where the undersized ballots were printed also saw Republican candidates for Congress and State treasurer win handily, so why no protest?

sometimes a [bleep] candidate is just a [bleep] candidate. (see Hillary Clinton)

Kari Lake was a [bleep] candidate with a nice rack and experience reading a teleprompter.

I'd watch the exercise video if it was free.

kwg,

she presented it in front of a Republican judge, who was appointed by Jan Brewer. (remember the wrinkly old gal who wagged her finger at Obama?)

Lots of Republican judges in Arizona, always have been.

You make Biden look like a genius...................

Not the question. The question was whether the court followed legal standards in the way it ruled on the evidentiary matter, not why other candidates didn't file suit as well.

I give you too much credit for having a room temp IQ.

Where would it leave deniability if the Dems ran the table?

This is true....they pick some names out of a hat to pick some repubs to win....wouldn't want to be to obvious....bob

How many voters just gave up when they encountered the long[non-moving] lines?

Hobbs and Maricopa county file for sanctions against Kari Lake, her lawyers.

https://www.12news.com/article/news.../75-bee01ffe-4680-4a9b-a839-0ba11b2106e1

The same Hobbs that didn't recuse herself ?

It was my question, so why didn't the Dems who lost claim fraud?



Kari Lake didn't have evidence of fraud.

But she did say well before the election "If I win it's a fair election, if I don't it's a fraud"

I think we all knew somebody like that in 3rd grade.

Hobbs runs your state, legally elected by a majority. Right?

Arizona loves illegals so much they voted for Hobbs, Flagstaff didn’t go for Hobbs?

How much FTX money you figure it takes to win an election without attending a debate? Or campaigning?

Being in charge of the election probably doesn’t hurt either.. congrats on your new governor

Tff you dumbbunnies. And since when does R mean R and not Rino, or honeypotted and blackmailed or paid off by your bud Soros or threatened with having a couple of grandkids dissappear?

Your so easy to roll its unreal.

He knows it's going to the SC. Let them take the heat. Move the threat down the line.

BTW, dumbfughk, did you ever consider Hobbs may have to take the oath of office to complete the act for treason charges to stick. Trying to steal an election or car is not the same as stealing one, now is it?

Just think
Just less than 2 more years before they Steal the next elections.

That gives all of us something to look forward to.

it gets frustrating waiting for the Military to move in.

Hope it is sooner rather than latter.

There’s no way Hobbs could’ve won without fraud. Everyone knows it. Hobbs won nothing and her actions prove it.

Next step is the SC. Hopefully it's done that way and not the hard way.

I expect it will be the hard way.

Why?

Because as Q said, the Military is the only way forward.

IOW, as Q said, "The left can't win".

That's why Q and then later Trump said, "Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming"..

That's why Q and years later Trump said, "The best is yet to come."

As Q said, "God wins".

Military moving in to right things? Guess again. Upper echelons were purged by O several years ago. Woke and obedient.

There was evidence of fraud. It's why the judge just ruled against sanctions. As the judge wrote,

"“There is no doubt that each side believes firmly in its position with great conviction,” the judge ruled (pdf) on Dec. 27. “The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required … does not equate to a finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith. "

As for the sufficiency of evidence, the judge set an impossible standard. Read my original post here for the explanation.

Cheating is not a win.

The judge wimped out because the evidence is not arguable. It is clear, convincing and massive. They stole it in the open. I expect the Supreme Court to follow suit but it will be overturned one way or the other.

We need to commission a Piper SaratogaII for Airforce 1.

name the evidence.

The election workers and evidence from the stand proved there was no chain of custody, dumbfughk.

They admitted the vote machines were tampered with just before the election after being tested, dumbfughk.

Election officials admitted the numbers of votes were tallied as required by law before leaving the premises, dumbfughk.


It will be presented again in the SC or Military Tribunals. Try to pay attention next time, dumbfughk.

Sycamore is being completely obtuse on purpose. It's a waste of time attempting to reason with a leftist. They can't think clearly.

Well, actually he is clueless as to the fraud because he only listens to cnn. Hes unaware of the illegalities enumerated above. That's why he's a dumbfughk.

Plus, he doesn't know what chain of custody means.

All one has to do is read the court's opinion with open eyes to see how ridiculous it was to dismiss the case.

For those who haven't read it, I'll provide a summary.

The judge starts out with a few stipulations that effectively make the outcome a fait accompli. First, there's this:

Our Territorial Supreme Court agreed in Oakes v. Finlay, 5 Ariz. 390, 398 (1898) that “it
is . . . unwise to lay down any rule by which the certainty and accuracy of an election may be
jeopardized by the reliance upon any proof affecting such results that is not of the most clear and
conclusive character.” (citing Young v. Deming, 33 P. 818, 820 (Utah 1893)) (emphasis added).
The official election returns are prima facie evidence of the votes actually cast by the electorate.

Plain English meaning: You have to have such an overwhelming body of evidence showing that the election results were incorrect that no one could think otherwise, and what the official election results (which in this case, were under the supervision of the party engaging in the alleged fraud) say is proof of who the voters voted for.

Second, there's this amazing stipulation:

As for the actions of elections officials themselves, this Court must presume the good faith
of their official conduct as a matter of law. Hunt, 19 Ariz. at 268. “[A]ll reasonable presumptions
must favor the validity of an election.” Moore v. City of Page, 148 Ariz. 151, 155 (App. 1986).


Plain English meaning: Those who commit the fraud are presumed to have not committed fraud.

With those two stipulations, you'd have to have the election officials in AZ actually admit that they engaged in fraud, and intended to do so, if you want to win the case.

The Democrats are smart. They know that as long as they obfuscate what they've done they will have the courts assuming that the election was fair and lawful. You'd have to have the elections board come out and say "yeah, we rigged the election" for the court to rule in Lake's favor.

And guess what? None of the election officials admitted to engaging in fraud.

Lake had five expert witnesses testify as to why they concluded that there had been fraud and each expert's testimony was disregarded because they didn't actually adduce the "yes, we committed fraud" admission from election officials. Rather, the experts engaged in what any scientific analysis does...they looked at the raw data, compared it to what you'd have expected to see based on past observations and logical rules, and concluded that there had to have been fraud for the results to have ended up as they did. Here's an example of how the court simply ignored the expert testimony by stating that it wasn't specific enough:


Indeed, to the extent that a range of outcomes was suggested by Mr. Baris, he suggested
that – with his expected turnout increase on Election Day of 25,000-40,000 votes the outcome
could be between a 2,000-vote margin for Hobbs to a 4,000-vote margin for Plaintiff. Taking Mr.
Baris’s claims at face value, this does not nearly approach the degree of precision that would
provide clear and convincing evidence that the result did change as a result of BOD printer failures.
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. Cf. Moore, 148 Ariz. at 159 (suggesting that population data might in some
cases be admissible to prove voter disenfranchisement).


But when the judge went to weigh the expert testimony against the testimony of election officials, he simply assumed that what they were saying (that the election wasn't fraudulent) was true:

Scott Jarrett – also a co-director, and Mr. Stephen Richer – County Recorder, each testified that
Maricopa County election workers are trained to follow the EPM and that – to their knowledge –
this was done in 2022. As noted above, both Mr. Valenzuela and Mr. Jarrett testified that Maricopa
County employees were observing the ballots at each stage in the process. Plaintiff brought
forward no evidence sufficient to contradict this testimony.

Had the judge treated the election officials in the same manner as the expert witnesses, he would have required them to prove that they all followed ballot counting procedures properly. Instead, he just accepted their claims that they followed all procedures properly.

What this shows is that the Democrats will always be able to steal elections so long as they do as the mafia does...keep the various actors insulated enough from one another, and conceal the connections and actions of those parties sufficiently, that there is not a single person who can come forward to document the exact means that were employed in the fraud.

Frogsnacks!

Remsen, thanks for the Cliffs Notes on this case.

X2

It's rigged. Apparently in Arizona you can't file a lawsuit without evidence and you can't get evidence without a lawsuit.

Shìt no kidding!

Truth.

Anyone who thinks people voted R except for the Gov vote is crazy as hell.

The patriots are in control. LOL

There is a reason Q said the Military was the only way forward.

Yep, never interfere with the enemy when he is destroying himself.

Did your dumbfughk bud Suckawhore just say Arizonans aren't happy with the high numbers of illegal immigration and voted R for most positions but then voted for Hobbs for Gov?

Tff.

TFF!

except that it is a republican judge and a republican county with republican county supervisors....

kind of spoils the narrative, dontcha think?

Hey, why was it that you changed names here?

You don't and never will get it, clearly

He can't get that someone who ran as an R can be bought or honeypotted or a traitor. Those attributes are to be reserved for Suckawhores dimocommie buds.

losttrail60, why the name change?

You continue to chase your own tail by trying to argue that the presence of republicans is relevant. It's not.

Mitch McConnell. Mitt Romney. Adam Kinzinger. Liz Cheney. Susan Collins. Ben Sasse. Richard Burr. There's a long list of Republicans who have done more harm to the party than they've ever done to uphold conservative values.

Why not try reconciling the facts set out in the opinion with your utterly false claim that there was no evidence of fraud?

There was plenty, the judge chose to presume that there wasn't and then presumed that the election officials were telling the truth. To put the nail in the coffin, he utterly ignored the experts' testimony without even explaining why, and simply concluded that the evidence wasn't sufficient (which is a far different position than there was no evidence).

That the judge denied the attempt to sanction Lake proves that she produced evidence.

Have you even read the opinion?

Actually Reme, the dumbass is admitting that though he's a dimocrap, if the Rulings are done by Republicans that means all is correct and above board because they are above reproach.

The dumbfughk actually indicts himself and his lying dimocommie party and he's too stupid to realize it.

This^^^makes you part of the problem.