Link Post: The Fight for Arizona Election Trial: Lake v. Hobbs Day 2 - 12/22/2022. RSBN Rumble
(rumble.com)
🌵 RHINOS IN AZ 🌵
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (131)
sorted by:
I'm not sure we have the proper angle here. It seems feasible that the judge would agree with the defendants. Am I right that we need to show solid proof of purposeful neglect? As far as I can tell, the election was not run legally but that wasn't what the trial was about, correct?
I think the burden of proof is slightly different when it comes to elections. The defendants claim lawful chain of custody does not apply because plaintiff could not show tangible evidence of specific instances of failure. Plaintiff instead showed a broad failure in chain of custody. It may not apply under the narrow view of this hearing when establishing intentional misconduct. There must be hard evidence of this, the defendants claim. That is weak at best.
The defendants could have provided hard evidence that chain of custody was lawful in this election, but they chose not to. They want to disregard violating lawful procedure and their inability to provide evidence to the contrary is hard evidence of intentional misconduct. They must prove the chain of custody was lawful, but they decided to ignore it even claiming it does not apply to elections in their closing, which is completely nuts.
If this hearing results in a loss, I think it is still a huge win because once again we get to see how unlawful Maricopa county is, and this is on the record. That is my opinion.
This is how I see it as well. If so, Twitter is gonna be fun and messy...STFU crybabies!..you lost..and so on.
Closing lawyer for the defendants summed up the restrictions ordered by the judge on the case for the 2 Counts heard.
Did they prove the tabulators were willfully tampered with?
No, not completely. It was inferred from the 19" ballot images discussion and the admission of printer changes by Maricopa sponsored contractors, but the way the court specified the limitations on the two counts in the trials, the burden of proof seemed to require more, imho.
Yeah, this is where I am at.
The only thing they "proved" that shouldn't have been counted were the 50 votes of the employees.
The ballots with the wrong size were added later, and not wanting to wait in line isn't disenfranchisement, it's a personal choice.
The chain of custody stuff is murky but Lake's side didn't prove anything happened.