The chain of custody seems like a slam dunk. That would overturn the election. Proving intentional malice seems improbable, maybe the judge hopes to let the defendents look incompetent but not really crooked.
They started back in 2017 when Fontes was recorder. He didn't certify the machines, plus the 2018 election was a confused mess because of him. That got Hobbs in. As to the Feds, I've been wondering why "voter suppression" isn't a civil rights violation.
Actually this was explained here a few days ago (re: the Texas vs Fraud States case). States have the authority to conduct their elections; so vote and election issues can't be pursued at the federal level or across state borders.
DISCOVERY
The chain of custody seems like a slam dunk. That would overturn the election. Proving intentional malice seems improbable, maybe the judge hopes to let the defendents look incompetent but not really crooked.
They are going for maladministration, which should cause a redo of the election. Fraud brings in the Feds, and we know where that will go.
They started back in 2017 when Fontes was recorder. He didn't certify the machines, plus the 2018 election was a confused mess because of him. That got Hobbs in. As to the Feds, I've been wondering why "voter suppression" isn't a civil rights violation.
It's only suppression if Uniparty rats are affected.
Actually this was explained here a few days ago (re: the Texas vs Fraud States case). States have the authority to conduct their elections; so vote and election issues can't be pursued at the federal level or across state borders.
When?
Ah! My strategy of keeping expectations in the basement so that I can be delightfully surprised is finally paying off!