The twitter hounds are all over her, rubbing her nose in it. Something tells me there's more to this story. What catches my interest is her trips to Mar-a-Lago. No one really believed the judge would rule in her favor. She didn't even think the judge would rule in her favor. So, Katie Hobbs is going to be sworn in and that appears to be that. Something else tells me it won't be that, rather, far from that.
I've wondered the same, Raritan. Although I've thought about the AZ steal and this court case in the broader sense of "The Plan". For people to be "pushed to the brink", they have to see clear evidence that the Republic is completely broken and that all three branches of government are captured, compromised entities.
Perhaps a spot light is being put on the Kari Lake case to further "The Plan".
Or perhaps I'm just rationalizing all of it to assuage my outrage at this obvious election theft. But I am hopeful that there will at the very least be a silver lining to this disgusting event.
I hoped for the best, but realistically, whoever lost was going to appeal to the max, and the Superior Court Judge (county, this court) was going to punt. If Hobbs finally prevailed he would have had the governor and every county official on his back. If Lake prevails she will be too busy for vindictive foolishness.
Nobody is bothering to consider the implications for the judge if he ruled in Lake's favor. Before you chime in with "but muh rule of law..." ask yourself if there would be any point in him ruling in her favor if the AZ Supreme Court would simply reverse him. That is called judicial suicide.
I have no faith in any court to do anything beyond institutionalizing fraudulent elections. How do we know this judge doesn't share the same sentiment? We don't. But we do know that he is a human being; and human beings universally consider their own self interest.
If people think there is some kind of "plan" here, that is hardcore cope. The only "plan" that could exist in this instance is a plan to show people that its a complete waste of time to file election lawsuits. Or better - that it is actually going to cost those who do so dearly.
If the judge was correct in applying a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof, then the judge was correct in reaching the outcome that he did. Lake could never meet that burden of proof; the evidence she needs is in the hands of the defendant and she has no reasonable nor realistic opportunity to obtain it under the AZ election contest statute framework. I said a few days ago that its clear this statute was written without ever contemplating this level of egregious fuckery in elections. "Clear and convincing evidence" is further proof that even the process for contesting rigged elections is rigged.
Now what nobody is talking about is how the judge's opinion is written. He doesn't discredit the evidence. Not hardly at all. Although I think he misstates the testimony of a witness - a clearly erroneous misstatement. I noticed there is ZERO case law in the opinion to support the heightened evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing evidence" he applied here. His cites do not directly support this contention. I am not sure that standard is appropriate in this context for a handful of reasons. Getting into those would be doing a deeper dive than most people are interested in reading and would consume most of my Christmas Eve. But if people are interested you can just drop me a line and I am happy to elaborate. Notwithstanding the actual judgment in the opinion, the judge, in my view, has set this up for the higher court to reverse him on the standard of proof, which would result in him siding with Lake. And not end up getting reversed by the higher court because it would be at their direction he is applying this standard. He seems moved by the evidence. And under a normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard , it would lead him to side with the plaintiff.
You can call that a "plan" if you want to, but this is more like insurance for the judge because he doesn't trust the higher court. A pyrrhic victory is not a win. Especially for him and his family. If I am right, this judge doesn't trust the AZ Supreme Court not to leave him out to dry. If he doesn't trust them, we sure as hell shouldn't either.
I see what you're saying - the bar too high looking for 'intentional misconduct' but what if the election was just run incompetently - the defendants as much as admitted that their own techs changed settings to 'shrink to fit' in order to try to get machines back in service, which, actually showed that the tabulators would reject those ballots. (even repeating it here, this sounds 99% implausible). Disenfranchisement doesn't hold weight to conduct a new election?
Intentional misconduct is an element of the elections contest statute cause of action for claims against the county board. A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1). Well…misconduct is. That misconduct, according to this judge, must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence.” That is an enhanced evidentiary burden over the usual “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The latter meaning slightly more likely than not to be true; or greater than 50% chance. “Clear and convincing” is a mid point between greater than 50% chance of being true and beyond a reasonable doubt.
9th circuit defines it in their jury instructions as “When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For a number of reasons, I am not certain that “clear and convincing” is actually the required and appropriate evidentiary standard. I can go into that, but its a deep dive and most find it is tmi.
Intentional is a pretty arbitrary mens rea applied in a civil context. We aren’t talking about a criminal offense - yes what they did was criminal, but that isn’t part of the election contest statute. And we even impose culpability with potential lengthy incarceration time under both negligence and recklessness. So I am unsure why this is the standard - it is not prescribed by the legislature in the statute. They could have written “intentional misconduct” but they chose to omit that word. We are to assume that the absence of a term in a statute is the equivalent of its exclusion unless otherwise noted.
In tort law, “intentional” means that you intended the act. Not that you intended the outcome. Culpability in most personal injury torts does not hinge on whether you intended to harm someone; only that you intended the act that inflicted the harm. In an elections contest context, simply changing the printer configuration is an intentional act. Skipping the chain of custody forms for drop box votes until they arrive at a central facility is an intentional act. To be considered unintentional, it would require a showing of force, coercion, incapacitation, or sleep. Failing to act by itself, without more, would be unlikely to be considered intentional. Failing to act time after time after time after time would not rise to the level of intentional, but it would be quite easy to find recklessness. Which is often treated the same as intentional.
Disenfranchisement would warrant some sort of remedy. But that was the weakest part of the argument. There is no reliable way to ascertain how many people this prevented from voting. We know it did. But it is pure speculation in any other form. Judge didn’t like it because its a big 17k margin to overcome with basically a guess as to whether it altered the outcome or not. It is probably wrong to consider this question in a vacuum without viewing it in light of the other misconduct claim. I can understand his reluctance on that basis. You gotta be able to identify a sufficient number of people who didn’t cast a vote specifically on this basis. That will be virtually impossible. You’d never know who was a hack plant to sabotage your evidence at trial and who was legitimately disenfranchised.
The inability to get the necessary evidence an ordinary civil case would provide along with time to perfect arguments is the crime of this statute. It never contemplated this kind of shenanigan. If this judge is correct in his application of the law and the standards, this law is incapable of providing relief from lawless elections.
If simply being overruled by a higher judge was enough, this country would have very few Obama judges left considering how many times they were overruled on their bullshit.
That’s fine and dandy to take it to SCOTUS, but let’s be honest, you think they changed from 2020? We have lost our country. Nothing will bring us back.
The whole thing from the primary onwards was a demoralisation op. This was the cabal taking the down the best of the good guys, and doing it in such an obviously dishonest was exactly that they intended. It was all meant to demoralise the awake, to show them that no matter how they try to circumvent the cheating, the cabal will do anything, ANYTHING to hold on to power. This asinine ruling is all part of the demoralisation effort.
Kari Lake is just too good, too photogenic, too fast on her feet, too effective at undermining the media - she is an existential threat to the whole deep state. She has to be extinguished.
However, like when Obi-wan fought Darth Vader and said "If you strike me down, you will make me stronger than you can possibly imagine" - I am hoping that the same will happen with future President Kari Lake.
Thank you. I was looking for it earlier. What a weak ruling. Looks like someone trying not to kill himself or have his son's girlfriend car from blowing up.
Its designed to cause most fair weather Americans to give up.
When we came out in the rain for a demonstration about the fake voting, there were as many people as there were in that boat on the Delaware over 244 years ago.
To me there is nothing more to the story. The judge snarled and made faces in collusion with the defense (see body language expert analysis). This is going nowhere just like we all thought, and her attorneys seemed very tepid at best.
Why should the whole system be corrupt, but the justice not? That makes no sense.
Organize in AZ an election day, in each county, whoever shows up is allowed to vote. No ballots needed just raising your arms. If close, count the arms. This I call direct democracy, invented in Athens, Greece.
There’s another way to be counted. If you voted for Kari Lake stop paying taxes. Once the state of Arizona realizes that 80% of their people are not paying taxes it’ll be hard to deny that conservatives are the majority.
Thank you! I am so freaking tired of the gaslighting that goes on, every time we get stomped! Durham can’t get a conviction; “Oh don’t worry, it’s better that way we get evidence on the record.” Can’t get a judicial ruling in our favor; “oh don’t worry, just trust the plan.”
Is it really asking too much, for just one measly crumb to go our way? Something that doesn’t require the genius pundits to explain to us how it actually is a good thing?
That'll get you labelled a "doomer" faster than the speed of light.
People are far too afraid to call a loss a loss. That's why they're so insistent on spinning every defeat into some mystical 75D Law of War chess maneuver or whatever.
I think everyone needs humble pie and to realize we don't know shit. this "loss" hurt most. screwing with the size of the ballot seems as obvious as can be. if however you're deep enough into the happenings in the world you almost have to realize good guys are doing a lot better than it appears to most on the surface. if the cabal had as much control as those who can have a tendency to doom, how then did dems lose house, how are pedos getting busted regularly, how did gitmo get such a grand makeover, how is trump not in shackles or pushing up daisies, how are the Twitter files being exposed while Twitter is also allowing proven "conspiracy theories" to spread, how is Brazil's military seemingly about to take over, his is Putin not crushed yet?.....there are far too many things of this nature that couldn't seem to happen if the cabal had the control many doomer types believe they have
don't blame you for squirming during this long ass nail biter movie, and I'm not sure when or if it'll bust open or if it's gonna have to be at a snails pace for years to come, but I'm confident NCSWIC whether that's by force of Patriots or Q or a combination
you have opened pandoras box so no ignoring it anyway. keep optimistic where pessimism promotes negative karma
The twitter hounds are all over her, rubbing her nose in it. Something tells me there's more to this story. What catches my interest is her trips to Mar-a-Lago. No one really believed the judge would rule in her favor. She didn't even think the judge would rule in her favor. So, Katie Hobbs is going to be sworn in and that appears to be that. Something else tells me it won't be that, rather, far from that.
That's not what I've been reading here. I can't even begin to count how many threads and posts I've read these past weeks insisting she would win.
And called doomer if you said otherwise.
You're a doomer for pointing out the obvious right up until it happens and then it becomes "well of course that happened! It had to happen!"
Forum in a nutshell.
It’s seriously so delusional I don’t know how these people keep doing it to themselves over and over again lol
I could not help but feel there is a plan here.
I've wondered the same, Raritan. Although I've thought about the AZ steal and this court case in the broader sense of "The Plan". For people to be "pushed to the brink", they have to see clear evidence that the Republic is completely broken and that all three branches of government are captured, compromised entities.
Perhaps a spot light is being put on the Kari Lake case to further "The Plan".
Or perhaps I'm just rationalizing all of it to assuage my outrage at this obvious election theft. But I am hopeful that there will at the very least be a silver lining to this disgusting event.
You’re rationalizing it. People have been claiming this type of thing since 2020 on everything bad that happens.
Sworn in, yes, as Trumps VP when this shit is finally over is my shot in the dark?
I hoped for the best, but realistically, whoever lost was going to appeal to the max, and the Superior Court Judge (county, this court) was going to punt. If Hobbs finally prevailed he would have had the governor and every county official on his back. If Lake prevails she will be too busy for vindictive foolishness.
She doesn't seem too concerned.
Q just might have her 6 ;)
Nobody is bothering to consider the implications for the judge if he ruled in Lake's favor. Before you chime in with "but muh rule of law..." ask yourself if there would be any point in him ruling in her favor if the AZ Supreme Court would simply reverse him. That is called judicial suicide.
I have no faith in any court to do anything beyond institutionalizing fraudulent elections. How do we know this judge doesn't share the same sentiment? We don't. But we do know that he is a human being; and human beings universally consider their own self interest.
If people think there is some kind of "plan" here, that is hardcore cope. The only "plan" that could exist in this instance is a plan to show people that its a complete waste of time to file election lawsuits. Or better - that it is actually going to cost those who do so dearly.
If the judge was correct in applying a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof, then the judge was correct in reaching the outcome that he did. Lake could never meet that burden of proof; the evidence she needs is in the hands of the defendant and she has no reasonable nor realistic opportunity to obtain it under the AZ election contest statute framework. I said a few days ago that its clear this statute was written without ever contemplating this level of egregious fuckery in elections. "Clear and convincing evidence" is further proof that even the process for contesting rigged elections is rigged.
Now what nobody is talking about is how the judge's opinion is written. He doesn't discredit the evidence. Not hardly at all. Although I think he misstates the testimony of a witness - a clearly erroneous misstatement. I noticed there is ZERO case law in the opinion to support the heightened evidentiary standard of "clear and convincing evidence" he applied here. His cites do not directly support this contention. I am not sure that standard is appropriate in this context for a handful of reasons. Getting into those would be doing a deeper dive than most people are interested in reading and would consume most of my Christmas Eve. But if people are interested you can just drop me a line and I am happy to elaborate. Notwithstanding the actual judgment in the opinion, the judge, in my view, has set this up for the higher court to reverse him on the standard of proof, which would result in him siding with Lake. And not end up getting reversed by the higher court because it would be at their direction he is applying this standard. He seems moved by the evidence. And under a normal "preponderance of the evidence" standard , it would lead him to side with the plaintiff.
You can call that a "plan" if you want to, but this is more like insurance for the judge because he doesn't trust the higher court. A pyrrhic victory is not a win. Especially for him and his family. If I am right, this judge doesn't trust the AZ Supreme Court not to leave him out to dry. If he doesn't trust them, we sure as hell shouldn't either.
I see what you're saying - the bar too high looking for 'intentional misconduct' but what if the election was just run incompetently - the defendants as much as admitted that their own techs changed settings to 'shrink to fit' in order to try to get machines back in service, which, actually showed that the tabulators would reject those ballots. (even repeating it here, this sounds 99% implausible). Disenfranchisement doesn't hold weight to conduct a new election?
Intentional misconduct is an element of the elections contest statute cause of action for claims against the county board. A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1). Well…misconduct is. That misconduct, according to this judge, must be shown by “clear and convincing evidence.” That is an enhanced evidentiary burden over the usual “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The latter meaning slightly more likely than not to be true; or greater than 50% chance. “Clear and convincing” is a mid point between greater than 50% chance of being true and beyond a reasonable doubt.
9th circuit defines it in their jury instructions as “When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For a number of reasons, I am not certain that “clear and convincing” is actually the required and appropriate evidentiary standard. I can go into that, but its a deep dive and most find it is tmi.
Intentional is a pretty arbitrary mens rea applied in a civil context. We aren’t talking about a criminal offense - yes what they did was criminal, but that isn’t part of the election contest statute. And we even impose culpability with potential lengthy incarceration time under both negligence and recklessness. So I am unsure why this is the standard - it is not prescribed by the legislature in the statute. They could have written “intentional misconduct” but they chose to omit that word. We are to assume that the absence of a term in a statute is the equivalent of its exclusion unless otherwise noted.
In tort law, “intentional” means that you intended the act. Not that you intended the outcome. Culpability in most personal injury torts does not hinge on whether you intended to harm someone; only that you intended the act that inflicted the harm. In an elections contest context, simply changing the printer configuration is an intentional act. Skipping the chain of custody forms for drop box votes until they arrive at a central facility is an intentional act. To be considered unintentional, it would require a showing of force, coercion, incapacitation, or sleep. Failing to act by itself, without more, would be unlikely to be considered intentional. Failing to act time after time after time after time would not rise to the level of intentional, but it would be quite easy to find recklessness. Which is often treated the same as intentional.
Disenfranchisement would warrant some sort of remedy. But that was the weakest part of the argument. There is no reliable way to ascertain how many people this prevented from voting. We know it did. But it is pure speculation in any other form. Judge didn’t like it because its a big 17k margin to overcome with basically a guess as to whether it altered the outcome or not. It is probably wrong to consider this question in a vacuum without viewing it in light of the other misconduct claim. I can understand his reluctance on that basis. You gotta be able to identify a sufficient number of people who didn’t cast a vote specifically on this basis. That will be virtually impossible. You’d never know who was a hack plant to sabotage your evidence at trial and who was legitimately disenfranchised.
The inability to get the necessary evidence an ordinary civil case would provide along with time to perfect arguments is the crime of this statute. It never contemplated this kind of shenanigan. If this judge is correct in his application of the law and the standards, this law is incapable of providing relief from lawless elections.
Thank you for laying this out so wellđź‘Ś
Interesting - a rig of a rig. What tangled webs we weave...
If simply being overruled by a higher judge was enough, this country would have very few Obama judges left considering how many times they were overruled on their bullshit.
No judge is going to rule against the Democratic machine on election fraud. They are either die-hard loyalists, or too afraid of the consequences.
B.A.R-tenders
I think we all knew this is exactly how this judge would rule. Is this over? NOPE! Now go enjoy Christmas frens. Merry Christmas.
That’s fine and dandy to take it to SCOTUS, but let’s be honest, you think they changed from 2020? We have lost our country. Nothing will bring us back.
Scotus will deny because they don’t want to be seen telling the states how use their authorities. The system is fucking fucked mate.
Regardless Christ is King.
The whole thing from the primary onwards was a demoralisation op. This was the cabal taking the down the best of the good guys, and doing it in such an obviously dishonest was exactly that they intended. It was all meant to demoralise the awake, to show them that no matter how they try to circumvent the cheating, the cabal will do anything, ANYTHING to hold on to power. This asinine ruling is all part of the demoralisation effort.
Kari Lake is just too good, too photogenic, too fast on her feet, too effective at undermining the media - she is an existential threat to the whole deep state. She has to be extinguished.
However, like when Obi-wan fought Darth Vader and said "If you strike me down, you will make me stronger than you can possibly imagine" - I am hoping that the same will happen with future President Kari Lake.
https://twitter.com/Garrett_Archer/status/1606721256401010688/photo/1
Thank you. I was looking for it earlier. What a weak ruling. Looks like someone trying not to kill himself or have his son's girlfriend car from blowing up.
Bingo.
Its designed to cause most fair weather Americans to give up.
When we came out in the rain for a demonstration about the fake voting, there were as many people as there were in that boat on the Delaware over 244 years ago.
Can we get a Uber win? Cmon man
I just saw that.
To me there is nothing more to the story. The judge snarled and made faces in collusion with the defense (see body language expert analysis). This is going nowhere just like we all thought, and her attorneys seemed very tepid at best.
Why should the whole system be corrupt, but the justice not? That makes no sense. Organize in AZ an election day, in each county, whoever shows up is allowed to vote. No ballots needed just raising your arms. If close, count the arms. This I call direct democracy, invented in Athens, Greece.
There’s another way to be counted. If you voted for Kari Lake stop paying taxes. Once the state of Arizona realizes that 80% of their people are not paying taxes it’ll be hard to deny that conservatives are the majority.
Elections barely have over 50% turnout anyway. Should just stop voting so it falls under 50% and therefore is illegitimate.
Thank you! I am so freaking tired of the gaslighting that goes on, every time we get stomped! Durham can’t get a conviction; “Oh don’t worry, it’s better that way we get evidence on the record.” Can’t get a judicial ruling in our favor; “oh don’t worry, just trust the plan.” Is it really asking too much, for just one measly crumb to go our way? Something that doesn’t require the genius pundits to explain to us how it actually is a good thing?
Heaven forbid you call a spade a spade.
That'll get you labelled a "doomer" faster than the speed of light.
People are far too afraid to call a loss a loss. That's why they're so insistent on spinning every defeat into some mystical 75D Law of War chess maneuver or whatever.
I think everyone needs humble pie and to realize we don't know shit. this "loss" hurt most. screwing with the size of the ballot seems as obvious as can be. if however you're deep enough into the happenings in the world you almost have to realize good guys are doing a lot better than it appears to most on the surface. if the cabal had as much control as those who can have a tendency to doom, how then did dems lose house, how are pedos getting busted regularly, how did gitmo get such a grand makeover, how is trump not in shackles or pushing up daisies, how are the Twitter files being exposed while Twitter is also allowing proven "conspiracy theories" to spread, how is Brazil's military seemingly about to take over, his is Putin not crushed yet?.....there are far too many things of this nature that couldn't seem to happen if the cabal had the control many doomer types believe they have
don't blame you for squirming during this long ass nail biter movie, and I'm not sure when or if it'll bust open or if it's gonna have to be at a snails pace for years to come, but I'm confident NCSWIC whether that's by force of Patriots or Q or a combination
you have opened pandoras box so no ignoring it anyway. keep optimistic where pessimism promotes negative karma
Well said, all of youđź‘Ś
Brazil isn’t keeping bolsonaro, why else is his wife crying in front of the people? The Brazilian military isn’t doing shit just like Americas