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

[JimH52]

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.

To think the woman threatened the NFL about playing the SB in Arizona. Be careful what you wish for.

MSN

www.msn.com

Now she can only threaten to file another appeal. What a LOSER!

 

[otto105]

Your ilk has gotten away with riots for many years.

"ilk"?

You poor white grievance boi.

 

[JimH52]

"ilk"?

You poor white grievance boi.

Born whiners.

 

[Skylar]

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

I'm not quoting me. I'm citing the standards of evidence that Kari had to meet, laid out by the judge when authorized Lake's hearing.

"However, evidence is not before the Court at the motion to dismiss stage—pleadings, made under the auspices of Rule 11 are. Accordingly, Plaintiff must show at trial that the BOD printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome."

Right there. Lake had to prove that the malfunctions were intentional, that this was actual sabotage. AND that the sabotage was directed to affect the results of the election. AND that the actions did actually affect the outcome. And she failed utterly.

Worse still, the judge already laid the case law he was required to hold Kari to:

"A court must apply “all reasonable presumptions” in “favor [of] the validity of an election.” Moore v. City of Page, 148 Ariz. 151, 155 (App. 1986). “[H]onest mistakes or mere omissions on the part of election officers, or irregularities in directory matters, even though gross, if not fraudulent, will not void an election, unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain.” Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 269 (1929).

You know all of this. But pretend you don't.

This is how I knew the outcome. I'd seen the brief that Kari submitted and knew her claims and what she had to support them. I knew the high standard of evidence she would have to face, as the judge laid them out. And I knew her brief didn't meet those standards.

Nothing has changed on appeal. No matter how hard you pretend.

 

[otto105]

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.

What fraud can you present which is based in facts?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You know all of this. But pretend you don't.

you give him far too much credit

 

[Skylar]

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.

What fraudulent election?

 

[otto105]

You tell me, you dipshit.

You're the one that believes in fraud bluto.

I'm just waiting for any one of you believers to actually present it.

 

[Skylar]

you give him far too much credit

The alternative is desperate, willful ignorance.....a refusal to educate himself on the basics of the case, the applicable caselaw, or the standards of evidence that Kari would be held to.

Which were *clearly* laid out ahead of the hearing.

If he'd done none of these things, that would render any opinion he has on the matter to be meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish of someone without the slightest clue what he's talking about.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt of being merely wildly disingenuous and ignoring what the judge laid out.

 

[BackAgain]

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

No, you idiot. She conceded and then spent years falsely Claiming that she’d won.

Go play in heavy traffic.

 

[BackAgain]

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

She hasn’t filed hundreds. You have her mistaken for others. You dope.

 

[BackAgain]

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

And furthermore, the announced outcome isn’t reliable.

 

[otto105]

No, you idiot. She conceded and then spent years falsely Claiming that she’d won.

Go play in heavy traffic.

Hillary has not spent the last four years claiming that she won Bluto.

 

[Skylar]

Hillary has not spent the last four years claiming that she won Bluto.

When did Hillary claim she won the 2016 election?

I'm pretty sure that's made up bullshit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

She hasn’t filed hundreds. You have her mistaken for others. You dope.

Which is why I said hers has been added to those

 

[BackAgain]

Hillary has not spent the last four years claiming that she won Bluto.

I didn’t say she spent the last four years making the claim. You moron.

But she did say it frequently enough while Trump was in office, you idiot.

 

[BackAgain]

Which is why I said hers has been added to those

Hers have nothing to do with those. Snap out of it.

 

[Skylar]

I didn’t say she spent the last four years making the claim. You moron.

But she did say it frequently enough while Trump was in office, you idiot.

Can you cite her? Since you claim its frequently, pick your top 3 quotes of Hillary claiming to have won the 2016 election.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And furthermore, the announced outcome isn’t reliable.

It is to anyone that is not a mindless MAGA turd.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hers have nothing to do with those. Snap out of it.

But they all have the same result. Which was my point. Have you been drinking tonight, you are not normally this stupid.