Link Post: The Fight for Arizona Election Trial: Lake v. Hobbs Day 2 - 12/22/2022. RSBN Rumble
(rumble.com)
🌵 RHINOS IN AZ 🌵
Comments (131)
sorted by:
Christine Blasey Ford
^^^ THIS ^^^
Bingo!
YES BINGOOOO. The Liberal Karen Voice Syndrome (LKVS).
i wAnT tO sPeAK tO tHe mAnAgEr!
I just commented about that. It's "valley girl" talk. Ending a sentence with a question when it's not a question.
It is grating to listen to.
NASA used one chick to to play-by-play who talked like that and it took away from the rocket launch. That was a few months ago.
In re: “ending a sentence with a question (tone) when it’s not a question”
It is characteristic of many women who end their declarative sentences in that way.
For the benefit of the parents here, please raise your children (especially girls) to end their declarative sentences without that “uptick.” Speech and communications experts say it betrays a certain amount of insecurity and lack of confidence in what you are saying.
If you’re lucky enough to be a based mom, you can help by setting a good example. Children are sponges and WILL (as you well know ;-) mimic and repeat what the parents in their lives say. I myself have many swear words (and those related to taint-shaving 🤣) deeply and regrettably imbued in my language because of my mom’s talks and rants as she was doing her best to raise moi.
More on the “uptick.”
WOMEN: WHAT’S UP WITH THE QUESTION MARK LOVE?
Why Some Grown Women Sound Like Girls | How many of us gain psychological safety while sacrificing credibility at work?
They use that questioning, “cutesy” tone because it works for them on the people in their lives. LKVS is indeed a thing with the…
…manipulative, ‘tarded liberal set, they are carefully gauging the other person’s reactions to see if they’re “buying it.” Blassey Ford is a terrific example.
Even worse(as long as the subject is kicking around my tiny brain), is the uncontrolled - sounding giggling BS.
This becomes especially annoying if you’re listening to someone who has grown too old and unattractive to “pull it off.” <<<Cough, cough, Vice President Kamala Hyena CacklesLikeOldChickenHarris>>>
Too much interaction with SIri and not enough with humans.
Either that or these members of the bar are programmed.
It's called "uptalk." Many females do it. When males do it, it is particularly annoying.
No, more than that. Super low pitch and scratchy.
jen saki talks that way. drives me nuts.
Almost as bad as "dr" birx
that's true!
Yeah, all insufferable cunts sound like her, and she fits the bill to a tee.
That voice was nauseating! I found it so hard to listen to her - wanted to see what she looked like as it was so difficult.
Note to anyone who might be a witness in a courtroom one day:
When an attorney tries to hammer you by asking you a question, you give what you think is not yet a complete answer, and attorney demands, "Yes or no? Yes or no?" or says, "You answered, that's enough!" then the attorney is intentionally trying to stop you from giving more of an answer that might harm his own case.
Here is what you say in response:
"Sir/Ma'am, I have sworn to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. If a yes or no answer, or an incomplete answer is not sufficient to honor my oath, then I will finish my answer fully -- and you will not tell me to give an incomplete answer."
You could also say, "If yes or no is not the whole truth, then you will have to give me immunity against perjury; otherwise, I will give my complete answer."
"Academia means nothing...People want the Truth."
--Mr. Barris
smack
Still wonder if Lake is "watch the water"?
Oh shit … thats what I call a ‘thought grenade’. Just blew the tin foil right off my brain bucket.
Nothing is for sure, but it seems that way. It's pretty clear now what "the shot heard round the world" refers to.
Q: Mr. Mayer ...
A: DOCTOR Mayer, please!
Q: Oh, sorry. So ... Mr. Mayer ...
KEK
Mr Mayer: I am a professor of political science.
(Yeah, that's a problem, not a virtue.)
Q: What makes you an expert on this subject?
A: I studied the data from the election.
Q: What data?
A: From Maricopa county.
Q: What is your expert opinion?
A: Hobbs won.
Q: Based on what?
A: The election data from Maricopa county.
Q: Did you do any analysis to determine whether or not that data might be wrong?
A: Wrong? How could government data be wrong?
Q: Do you think that government data can never be wrong?
A: Wrong? Government data is always correct, sir! I will remind you that I have a doctorate in Political Science. That's ... SCIENCE!
Q: What do you say about the pollster who cross checked the data and found that the data may not be correct, or the testimony of witnesses that said that ballots were not valid?
A: Huh? This was an election. A GOVERNMENT election. That sort of thing just cannot happen.
Q: How do you know?
A: SCIENCE!
more like SOYENCE, although I did not watch. so maybe he is pronouncing soyence wrong.
And, and...it was certified and I re-lied on it.
"538" aggregation doesn't like Barris.
Who is 538 and what makes them authoritative?
538 is a polling operation run by Nate Silver.
He is often wrong.
538 is swamp friendly. So of course they want to discredit Barris.
His (Nate Silver)methods are public and readily available and repeatable by anyone either side of the aisle. Not saying he's always predicting correctly what eventually happens, but it wouldn't be because he's fudging numbers. That would destroy his business and it would be easily proven.
I'm no fan of his, or his business. It's my opinion though that just because he sometimes predicts outcomes we wouldn't be pleased with, it doesn't mean he's "swamp".
The bottom line is: Is a pollster accurate?
From what I have seen, Silver is not particularly accurate, no matter what his methodology is.
Right. I was speaking to something else though. Namely the intent. I don't think it's nefarious. That's all.
Understood.
Not sure I agree, but can't prove it one way or the other.
I would say the same thing for my own self. I can't prove much. Appreciate the back and forth though. Stay warm, Anon.
He way oversamples dems. This is how you get the suppression polls trump talked about and basically lays cover for the fraud.
I hadn't heard that about 538 but its definitely biased if that's the case. No bueno, man. No freaking bueno. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
For some reason, my post didn't appear.
Liddy is admitting what we have known and experienced. The McCain wing doesn't give a crap about AZ and if they lose in the primary, the will vote for the Dem candidate or not vote at all. Karrin Taylor-Robson was one of those.
It's not the voter disenfranchisement that swung the election. It was the damn 19" ballots that couldn't be tabulated, you lying sacks of crap! I hate these people more and more. Might as well ask, "Did Santa Claus steal the election?" "There is no evidence of that!" Well, damn, that doesn't matter!
According to Lake’s witness yesterday, those were counted anyway.
Counted how? At adjudication, since they couldn't be tabulated? And when those originals are no longer with the copies, there is no way to check what the voter's original intent was.
They duplicate it, election workers from both parties supervise, then make sure it scans. The guy yesterday admitted this is the case.
Sure if they ever make it to the counting center. Remember that a bunch of box 3 ballots were tossed in with the already counted ballots.
Even if that IS the case, when they transport it without proper chain of custody, ANYTHING can happen. They don't do it right there, but later, after transport.
My question is this. Why the living hell would they change it from 20" to 19" if not to try to pull a fast one SOMEWHERE along the way? Factor in the complete lack of chain of custody and the questions are enough to call the whole process into question. That, in turn, calls the entire election into question. Can you seriously not see this as a problem?
I didn’t say it’s not a problem, but with the burden of proof in the case I don’t think it will matter.
Proving that chain of custody was practically non-existent was proof enough to throw the election out. Printing 19" ballots on 20" was enough to screw up election day voting. That was done on purpose. Those two issues alone are enough to cause criminal investigations, much less call the election into question.
This Mayer guy quickly corrected the judge by saying, " it's Dr. Mayer..." not Mr. Then Mr. Barris soon REPEATEDLY addresses him as Mr. without correction... it's nothing really but I think it's funny as hell! 🐸🖕...Dr.
Minor correction to your recollection. I believe it was Kari Lake Attorney, Kurt Olsen, that addressed Mr.Mayer.
Ya know I was wondering if I had that right when I went back to listening. They weren't showing the courtroom at the time. Thanks for the clarification, I've been a little too busy to check and edit for a bit.
HINT to young female lawyers, talking like a "valley girl" is not a professional way to speak, IMHO and it is grating.
Young lawyer, telling a witness who uses MATH in his methodology (hint chick lawyer, unless you majored in math or engineering like I did, give up the attacking the witness on his "math" or "statistics.
Young lawyer, petri dish education in "polling" does not impress or is not necessary.
Young lawyer, POLLS with Hillary Clinton were notoriously WRONG by a lot.
New York Times is media, not a polling firm. Almost lways when a poll is released, the methodology is not and it is for the reader to look up, which I do.
the defense attorney is a dufus..."I could bring you a CD-ROM". seriously. I haven't heard that term in fifteen years
He's the plaintiff... the county is the defendent
such fucking horseshit with this guy
"It doesn't make sense" - Is that legalise ? Because it sounds like there should be a firmer emphasis on how illegal this is
Yeah I thought the same. Can't say I feel great about the outcome here, mostly due to the fact that this trial has to do with solid proof of willful tampering and not the legality of the election. Which is INSANE when a judge can hear proof of illegal election activity and act like they didn't hear it. Real Justice to me would be..."Did you just give me proof of an illegal election!? SHUT IT DOWN!!
The RSBN wait music is JAMMIN!!😎🎸🎶
It is written and performed by Jacob Seales (brother to RSBN founder ) You can find him on You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jacob+seales
This Jarret/Garret guy is so smug, and quite nervous under cross!
He's a deep state slime ball.
how many Americans need to be disenfranchised before it becomes an issue to these traitor commies?
Before we get to that, can we talk about the number at length? Now, I'm no math expert but let's look into this, are you saying 2.5%? What exactly does 2.5% mean? How did you get the 2.5%? Is it even a number? Can you confirm it's actually 2.5% or 25 over 1000? ... God damn that lawyer was dumb.
I think the point is they CANNOT CONFIRM SHIT
This Ryan Macias dude seems like he's reading a script
100%. Also, the way he raises his voice at the end of each sentence is another tell.
It will be interesting to see the cross examination
I think the juge said Lake's attorneys have like 30 seconds left. So 1 question.
This music seriously rocks. Anyone know who this is?
t is written and performed by Jacob Seales (brother to RSBN founder ) You can find him on You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jacob+seales
Thanks fren!!!!!!!!!!!
You're very welcome. He's a music teacher :)
Nope, but I had to post the same...😉
So Tom Liddy, counsel for County, is essentially admitting what many of us know in Maricopa County, the McCain wing, if their candidate doesn't win, they take their marbles and go home. They don't vote or support the Primary-Won Candidate due to them not being McCain wing. You know what Tom LIddy? I usually voted for the R candidate, McCain or not because the Democrat was FAR WORSE.
Karrin Taylor-Robson, would that be WHY you didn't bother to campaign after your Primary Loss?
Thanks Tom Liddy for ADMITTING what we have experienced and known. "RINOS" will only vote for their candidate, if their candidate loses, Screw Arizona.
Didn't this guy just say it took his t techs 2 hours to fix a printer problem but someone else testified that no voter was inconvenienced for 2 hours? Or am I wrong.
Up is Liddy, G Gordon's son. He used to be nice. Now he appears to be a smary county lawyer defending the undefensible.
Wow, I had no idea they were related. Thanks.
is tom referring to mccain wing, lol
Poll Methodology explained by Barris.
~160 poll respondents, from all districts of Maricopa. All respondents self reported as having voted on election day, not confirmed by election day records.
Prior records were available for the respondents (?)
Voter suppression methodology. Didn't catch this discussion substantively.
Who is the authority in the "polling industry" that defines polling practices???
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/will-the-polling-industry-ever-learn-from-its-mistakes
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-past-and-future-of-polling/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/24/opinion/frustrated-with-polling-pollsters-are-too.html
This shrink to fit shit is total crap. The printer was the 'shrink to fit' and that guy tried to.pass it off that it was an attempt to resolve the issue. What a bunch of horse shit.
He said there was no issue before, but someone changed it. Ugh. It makes me so fucking mad.
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.
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.
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.
Lake's attorneys only had 33 minutes to cross the 3 remaining witnesses. They might only have a rew minutes for the last witness. Their time management was terrible.
Here comes Barris
I just tuned in. Did I miss anything?
They identified Betty from the phone recording to Honey
Acknowledged by Hobb's folks who said she doesn't exist?
That MR Mayor looked very nervous and kept blinking his eyes over and over. While I don't think there were any bombshells from this particular witness (one way or the other), it looked to me that they wanted to get him on the record regarding his OWN "Conspiracy Theories" statements without being an expert and that he personally made claims without personally verifying (aka - he took the LIARS word for it.)
Biggest BS: The outcome wound not be impacted by disenfranchising R voters (fuck that BS)... looks like both sides are arguing over the "numbers" that could be the basis for a new election.
One of the proposed remedies from Lake's side is to adjust the vote totals rather than throw them all out. That would require determining if one side was disproportionately affected and how much. Personally I hope the judge realizes this would trigger a hundred statistical arguments like todays and that the easiest thing would be to do it over.
Tom Liddy, if you look at the other polls sample size for the Country in races is 1000 or less.
Lunch break until 1pm local time (MT)
Still I say,
VOTE IN PERSON ON ELECTION DAY.
unless you have lost all faith in them and choose not to participate in a fraudulent system.
best discussion going on at Badlands: https://rumble.com/v21w0q4-badlands-media-live-coverage-kari-lakes-election-lawsuit-day-2.html