A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME....BTW...he DID RULE ...AND DISMISSED THE CASE....i.e....he in as much said there was NO FRAUD...and we ALL know someone GOT TO HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem is that everyone wants to prove fraud, which means proving intent. This trial showed that many things were done wrong, but not really pinning intent on anyone. I don't understand why there aren't suits, or better, criminal charges, based on malfeasance.
This dudnt make sense.
How can a Judge both "Rule Against Kari Lake" and "A judge in Arizona failed to rule against massive, widespread voter fraud in the state on Saturday.
Did he rule or didn't he?
A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME....BTW...he DID RULE ...AND DISMISSED THE CASE....i.e....he in as much said there was NO FRAUD...and we ALL know someone GOT TO HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem is that everyone wants to prove fraud, which means proving intent. This trial showed that many things were done wrong, but not really pinning intent on anyone. I don't understand why there aren't suits, or better, criminal charges, based on malfeasance.
Where's the confusion? By ruling on shutting down Kari's fraud case he failed to rule "against" stopping the fraud she has brought to his attention.
Guess I had too much eggnog.