Arizona Judge Rejects Kari Lake’s Effort to Overturn Her Election Loss

[BackAgain]

What would USMB do without the legal expertise of Backagain, who after numerous election-denier losses since 2020 came to the conclusion that,

1) A trial will happen in Arizona.
2) An appeal will occur.

I note that you only denigrate so-called “election deniers” when it is your opponents who deny an election loss. But you’re silent when scumbags like Shrillary do it.

There’s a name for that. You’re a hypocrite. Have an adult assist you in looking it up.

Sort of a “trial” did occur in Az. An appeal is likely.

 

[BackAgain]

So, they had other evidence they didn't present.

You tell me, you dipshit.

 

[JimH52]

She's legally entitled to appeal, unless you hail from the left.

She should appeal since she is a loser, like trump.

 

[Skylar]

So, they had other evidence they didn't present.

Lake had already shown her hand with her 70 page brief. She had a grand total of 3 people....THREE, that had seen long lines and chosen not to vote.

She needed at least 17,000 folks who COULD not vote. Not 'chose not to'.

This was never in doubt. The confusion and surprise of Lake's supporters and the MAGA faithful is the product of their own desperate, willful ignorance.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure, when do we get a freebie J6?

Your ilk has gotten away with riots for many years.

 

[Skylar]

She should appeal since she is a loser, like trump.

She should appeal twice. Once to the appelant court. And once again to the Supreme Court of Arizona.

So she can lose 4 times. And we can point and laugh at her with each sniveling failure.

 

[JimH52]

Right wingers be like, " It's likely that we will be unable to prove our case over and over. So?"

They lose over and over.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nearly half of the machines set to fail in the same manner isn't negligence.

Let me guess, it's coincidence?

 

[JimH52]

She should appeal twice. Once to the appelant court. And once again to the Supreme Court of Arizona.

So she can lose 4 times. And we can point and laugh at her with each sniveling failure.

These MAGA election deniers are hilarious.

 

[Skylar]

Let me guess, it's coincidence?

Its a mistake that the County had backups for. Even Lake's people admitted that the votes got counted.

 

[Skylar]

These MAGA election deniers are hilarious.

If we're *really* lucky, she'll file federal appeals and a desperate hail Mary to the SCOTUS.

So she'll be a 6 time loser.

 

[otto105]

I note that you only denigrate so-called “election deniers” when it is your opponents who deny an election loss. But you’re silent when scumbags like Shrillary do it.

There’s a name for that. You’re a hypocrite. Have an adult assist you in looking it up.

Sort of a “trial” did occur in Az. An appeal is likely.

An appeal will not produce any different result.

As speculation doesn't make a case.

 

[Ame®icano]

Do you really think a judge is going overturn an election on speculation and conjecture?

If you do, check that ruling again.

If election laws were broken, he should've allow trial to figure out what's going on. If he did, what's worse thing that could happen?

We're not talking about one or two machine "malfunction", but more than half "malfunctioning" in the same way.

 

[Skylar]

An appeal will not produce any different result.

As speculation doesn't make a case.

Exactly. But BackAgain most defniitely DOES have a preferred outcome (he's an election denier with an elaborate conspiracy pedigree). And he's playing fake skeptic.

 

[BackAgain]

I expected the outcome that the evidence and standards of law indicated: her loss.

Arizona doesn't overturn elections on speculation and conjecture. Lake had 4 points she had to prove:

1) That the machines were intentionally sabotaged
2) That the intent of the sabotage was to turn the election against her
3) That the sabotage actually disenfranchised Arizona voters to such a degree
4) That Lake herself would have won

Lake had already shown her hand with her 70 page brief. It didn't support ANY of that. We (along with most legal experts) predicted that Lake would fail to prove intentional, fail to prove disenfranchisement and fail to prove that she won.

And we were right. The legal experts were right.

You ignored all of that, and pretended it was unknowable and unpredictable. Demonstrating that 1) you wanted her to win 2) you knew her case was dogshit.

Not one intelligent word of truth escaped your device when you posted that imbecility.

Why would the machines have to be proved to have been intentionally erroneous? Where did you come up with that crap that it required “sabotage?”

A why would “intent” have anything to do without. Had the machines been just “negligently” programmed or maintained and thus been unreliable, why wouldn’t that suffice to properly challenge the “outcome?”

Again, lose the word “sabotage.” But how the hell would you know if the machine results were credible and reliable and accurate if they could be shown to have been poorly programmed or malfunctioning? Isn’t it a reliable and accurate tally we should all be rooting for?

And why should she bear the burden of attempting to prove on such a short time frame basis that (absent the machine errors, ETC.) she “would” have won? Why shouldn’t the legal standard have been more reasonable?

 

[Skylar]

If election laws were broken, he should've allow trial to figure out what's going on. If he did, what's worse thing that could happen?

We're not talking about one or two machine "malfunction", but more than half "malfunctioning" in the same way.

And every one of those votes being counted.

Again, where's the disenfranchisement? Where's the fraud? Where's the different outcome?

You need to prove all of it. And Lake could prove none.

 

[pyetro]

I note that you only denigrate so-called “election deniers” when it is your opponents who deny an election loss. But you’re silent when scumbags like Shrillary do it.

There’s a name for that. You’re a hypocrite. Have an adult assist you in looking it up.

Sort of a “trial” did occur in Az. An appeal is likely.

Hillary went to court to overturn the election she lost?
Sit down.

 

[BackAgain]

An appeal will not produce any different result.

You don’t know that.

As speculation doesn't make a case.

No. But showing that the announced outcome isn’t reliable should result in a remedy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No. But showing that the announced outcome isn’t reliable should result in a remedy.

But that has not happened. Thus the lost case added to the 100s of others over the last two plus years

 

[Ame®icano]

Questioning 'whether or not'? Your ilk went straight to bleating about a stolen election before it was possible to collect evidence of fraud.

Your accusation preceded any possible evidence. And you've failed to back your claims with evidence since. You're not 'questioning'. You're straight up denying any result you don't like.

So, um....how's that working out for you?

Your ilk was screaming for 6 years about Trump being illegitimate president, and is still going after him.

Are you OK with certifying fraudulent elections? Or not allowing complaints to be investigated? I am not.

If election fraud is discovered, and every election has some background noise of fraud, and by some unforeseen revelation in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona 78K votes were legally disqualified, then the states would certify new totals. If Trump were to prevail in some argument about irregularities in counting, then a recount might be ordered.

It seems that left's only defense is that number of fraudulent votes is not enough to sway the election, but that is not true. If it turns out that Joe Blow voted twice, then election fraud has been discovered, the magnitude of the problem is precisely one vote in however many races he cast a ballot in, Joe is probably in trouble, and no one else really cares much because races with a one vote margin are pretty scarce. But if you’re talking about a hundred thousand fraudulent votes in a statewide race, and there had better be some pretty compelling evidence that this is the scale of the problem, then it’s a different problem. That’s definitely enough to sway the outcome of an election, so there is a high likelihood of the results of the first election being disallowed and a second election being called. I’d also expect some major law enforcement involvement in tracking down and prosecuting the perpetrators.

You support fraud, because it gets you a "win". Just don't complain when you lose the same way. Republicans can vote by mail too, or by drop boxes.