The Stolen Arizona Governor Race - Kari Lake vs. Katie Hobbs

#352
#352
Franklin Pierce said:
Judge Rejects Hobbs, Maricopa County's Demand That Kari Lake Be Santioned for Election Lawsuit

6e76de6e-4984-4e18-95df-2b4a72015f77-860x475.jpg


Democrat Katie Hobbs is having a tough time since she took office in January as Arizona’s governor. As my colleague Brittany Sheehan reported on Friday, her chief of staff resigning was just the latest in a wave of departures from her office. (see Resignations Pile up in AZ Gov Katie Hobbs’ Administration as Chief of Staff Steps Down)

Earlier on Saturday, my colleague at sister site Townhall, Rachel Alexander wrote an op-ed about the ongoing legal battles over the results of the 2022 midterm elections that haven’t ended in the Copper state, including those for governor and state attorney general, for Republican candidates Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh, respectively.

Judge Rejects Hobbs, Maricopa County's Demand That Kari Lake Be Santioned for Election Lawsuit
Click to expand...


You do understand that this judge dismissed Lake's lawsuit based on lack of proof. This was just a question as to whether Lake would get sanctioned for filing another frivolous suit. From his prior rulings it was clear that he wouldn't give sanctions. He allowed Lake to present any evidence she wanted, even when the rules would have supported not admitting the evidence. He said he wanted to preclude all appeals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and BowlBrother85
#353
#353
WBO said:
You do understand that this judge dismissed Lake's lawsuit based on lack of proof. This was just a question as to whether Lake would get sanctioned for filing another frivolous suit. From his prior rulings it was clear that he wouldn't give sanctions. He allowed Lake to present any evidence she wanted, even when the rules would have supported not admitting the evidence. He said he wanted to preclude all appeals.
Click to expand...
True ... and Lake is treating not being sanctioned as a form of vindication. This is crazy.
 
#354
#354
jmacvols1 said:
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone can watch this video of "signature verification" and determine that Lake had no proof...the judge set an impossible standard of there being proof of zero verification...but there was verification but on a certain percentage there was obvious no verification being done...she lost due to an activist judge setting an impossible standard of proof. She never claim there was zero, just that what was done didn't follow AZ laws regarding verification
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne, AM64 and jmacvols1
#355
#355
turbovol said:
It's all a massive GOP ruse. Under the guise of protecting the integrity of our elections, Republicans are trying to wrest power away from state election officials so that they can cheat and throw out Democratic votes. The party, tired of losing, is turning toward fascism.
Click to expand...
They need to start playing by the same rules as dems.
 
#356
#356
whodeycin85 said:
I don't know how anyone can watch this video of "signature verification" and determine that Lake had no proof...the judge set an impossible standard of there being proof of zero verification...but there was verification but on a certain percentage there was obvious no verification being done...she lost due to an activist judge setting an impossible standard of proof. She never claim there was zero, just that what was done didn't follow AZ laws regarding verification
Click to expand...

The judge is a Republican judge appointed by a Republican governor....
 
#357
#357
whodeycin85 said:
I don't know how anyone can watch this video of "signature verification" and determine that Lake had no proof...the judge set an impossible standard of there being proof of zero verification...but there was verification but on a certain percentage there was obvious no verification being done...she lost due to an activist judge setting an impossible standard of proof. She never claim there was zero, just that what was done didn't follow AZ laws regarding verification
Click to expand...
No judge is going to do something as drastic as invalidating the results of a gubernatorial election .... which was decided by a 17,000 vote margin.
 
#358
#358
BigOrangeMojo said:
The judge is a Republican judge appointed by a Republican governor....
Click to expand...
Don't care. Follow the law...she didn't claim there was no signature verification she claimed there was enough to signatures not properly verified that it could have changed the election..17k margin. 270 ballots found with improper verification is enough to overturn the election.
 
#359
#359
BowlBrother85 said:
No judge is going to do something as drastic as invalidating the results of a gubernatorial election .... which was decided by a 17,000 vote margin.
Click to expand...
That is the problem...no one want to take a stand and just want to keep the status quo....do we agree the judge set impossible standard of proof that wasnt in alignment with the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#360
#360
whodeycin85 said:
Don't care. Follow the law...she didn't claim there was no signature verification she claimed there was enough to signatures not properly verified that it could have changed the election..17k margin. 270 ballots found with improper verification is enough to overturn the election.
Click to expand...

Except he did follow the law. There's no time limit set for verifying signatures in AZ law. Even if you throw those out that were under a second. It doesn't change the result based on prior legal precedent. See attached note from the ruling.


The Court notes that, even if the Court had a basis for disqualifying 70,000 ballots, under the proportional reduction method prescribed by Grounds v. Lawe, given the mathematical computation set forth in her Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff would not prevail.
 
#361
#361
BigOrangeMojo said:
Except he did follow the law. There's no time limit set for verifying signatures in AZ law. Even if you throw those out that were under a second. It doesn't change the result based on prior legal precedent. See attached note from the ruling.


The Court notes that, even if the Court had a basis for disqualifying 70,000 ballots, under the proportional reduction method prescribed by Grounds v. Lawe, given the mathematical computation set forth in her Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff would not prevail.
Click to expand...
I haven't read that note but I'll for sure look up the proportional method...seems like a good argument for ballot tracking...I would have thought you'd have a log of those ballots and just to say hey review those ballots and signatures if they don't match throw them out regardless of who they are for
...by using a proportional method seems to benefit the winner..so if someone sent thru say 200k unverified signatures the proportional method would still benefit the winner..
 
#362
#362
WBO said:
You do understand that this judge dismissed Lake's lawsuit based on lack of proof. This was just a question as to whether Lake would get sanctioned for filing another frivolous suit. From his prior rulings it was clear that he wouldn't give sanctions. He allowed Lake to present any evidence she wanted, even when the rules would have supported not admitting the evidence. He said he wanted to preclude all appeals.
Click to expand...

Good luck if you ever decide to sue a government for not following rules with respect to you. They own all the evidence, you don't; therefore, you have no proof that you were treated unfairly.
 
#364
#364
whodeycin85 said:
That is the problem...no one want to take a stand and just want to keep the status quo....do we agree the judge set impossible standard of proof that wasnt in alignment with the law?
Click to expand...

If voting fraud is ever proven, it has the potential to upset everything. Starting with procedures and people failing the intent to fairly elect officials (possibly including the judge presiding), and ending with how long has this gone on. That's a potential for a complete loss of faith in our electoral system by everybody, and a question of has anything in the past been legal. Remember how judicial and court systems absolutely abhor the thought that some lab or procedural error can contaminate hundreds or thousands of prior cases?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#365
#365
whodeycin85 said:
I haven't read that note but I'll for sure look up the proportional method...seems like a good argument for ballot tracking...I would have thought you'd have a log of those ballots and just to say hey review those ballots and signatures if they don't match throw them out regardless of who they are for
...by using a proportional method seems to benefit the winner..so if someone sent thru say 200k unverified signatures the proportional method would still benefit the winner..
Click to expand...

I can't say that I've followed this process at all, but I immediately see a flaw in the proportional assumption. If you are talking simple error, then proportionality could be reasonable - that's a lot like the thought behind quality assurance. If you are talking cheating which probably wouldn't be consistently applied, proportionality is a whole different matter. If you are considering normal procedures (like in person voting with limited voting by mail under established procedures) and there's historical basis for assigning proportionality based on audits, that's one thing. If you change the rules wholesale to include problems with ballots and machines and with unprecedented mail in voting, then that's uncharted territory.
 
#366
#366
AM64 said:
I can't say that I've followed this process at all, but I immediately see a flaw in the proportional assumption. If you are talking simple error, then proportionality could be reasonable - that's a lot like the thought behind quality assurance. If you are talking cheating which probably wouldn't be consistently applied, proportionality is a whole different matter. If you are considering normal procedures (like in person voting with limited voting by mail under established procedures) and there's historical basis for assigning proportionality based on audits, that's one thing. If you change the rules wholesale to include problems with ballots and machines and with unprecedented mail in voting, then that's uncharted territory.
Click to expand...

Almost 80% of Arizona voters voted by mail in 2014, 2016, 2018. I would hardly say the percentages going over 80% in 2020 was "unprecedented"...
 
#367
#367
The below video is circulating around social websites. Some claim it is election officials breaking seals and tampering with memory cards while others claim it is "routine logic and accuracy tests" that are done before and after elections to make sure there are no issues counting ballots. But many if not most of the tabulators failed on election day. So did the people in the video fail in doing their job in testing the accuracy of the machines or were they tampering with results AFTER the machines had already been tested?



more info....

 
Last edited:
#368
#368
BigOrangeMojo said:
Almost 80% of Arizona voters voted by mail in 2014, 2016, 2018. I would hardly say the percentages going over 80% in 2020 was "unprecedented"...
Click to expand...

Almost 80% were too lazy or too crooked to show up and vote with a real ID for verification? That's incredible, if true. WTH is wrong with AZ to make all that mail in voting necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
#369
#369
AM64 said:
Almost 80% were too lazy or too crooked to show up and vote with a real ID for verification? That's incredible, if true. WTH is wrong with AZ to make all that mail in voting necessary?
Click to expand...

Old people. Lots of old people....
 
#370
#370
BigOrangeMojo said:
Old people. Lots of old people....
Click to expand...

You can still do polling stations in retirement centers and they can ride their golf carts to the community center, but they can't be 80% of the population. Besides those old people are supposed to be there for sun, fun, and recreation according to all the AZ propaganda - not supposed to be just there and warehoused.
 
#371
#371
n_huffhines said:
I promise you that if this system existed when Trump lost the election, he's still claiming fraud and people are still believing him. Too much happens behind the scenes. Joe Woodcock in small town Arkansas doesn't actually see with his own eyes that the fingerprint matching is valid, and he's not sure that it's not hacked, or manipulated, or whatever.

I don't think people would even believe it if it were done on blockchain.
Click to expand...

Then, in a spectacular one-off of Europe doing something better, return to in-person voting, voter ID, with restricted absentee balloting. At Real Clear Investigations: America the Outlier: Voter Photo IDs Are the Rule in Europe and Elsewhere
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#373
#373
whodeycin85 said:
That is the problem...no one want to take a stand and just want to keep the status quo....do we agree the judge set impossible standard of proof that wasnt in alignment with the law?
Click to expand...
We can agree that there is a high burden of proof to reach in order to invalidate the results of an election. What the judge did was completely in line with the law, however.

Kari Lake has sour grapes over losing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and volfanhill
#375
#375
AM64 said:
Almost 80% were too lazy or too crooked to show up and vote with a real ID for verification? That's incredible, if true. WTH is wrong with AZ to make all that mail in voting necessary?
Click to expand...


There is nothing at all wrong with mail-in voting. It's all just the latest, pernicious conspiracy theory from Republicans attempting to make excuses for their election losses---big, fat FACT. The lies told by Trump and some of his hench people--hello, Kari Lake Loser--have done serious damage to our democratic institutions. And gullible, low IQ rubes who hate Dems are happy to believe them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top