I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
The first time I saw this word ‘intent’ widely used was when Comey cleared Killary of any wrongdoing. It is one of those things the left have illegally invented as a get out of jail free card. If I was going 90mph down the interstate and got stopped the trooper wouldn’t let me off because I didn’t intend to speed. I would still get that ticket! There is the law for the little people and there are the loopholes for the other people.
I understand the judge refused to hear 8 out of 10 charges Kari Lake's team filed in their lawsuit. IMHO, this provided a very good insight to what was to come. It was an uphill battle to begin with because of this. The fix was in before the trial began. The incredibly short period given to Lake's team to prepare the all-too-small samplings evidenced the fix was already in. Still, with this limited sampling the evidence presented was incontrovertibly convincing.
It was, but the plaintiff lawyer never once implied intentional wrong doing.
The closest they came was the county intentionally making the printer change, which the county later admitted using the logic that what broke the printer was just an attempt to fix them without going into detail what was even broken from certified configs.
They left so much on the table. And I gotta wonder why?
Everyone knew it would go to appeals. Maybe by doing everything but accusing the murderer of murder allows some sort of legal maneuvering?
The witness for Lake did say it could only be done intentionally. The lawyer cannot himself make a statement of fact like this. The response would be an objection form the defense with the judge siding with the defense and cautioning the prosecutor.
Maybe it’s a double jeopardy sort of thing? Scientist, not a lawyer.
Appeal was inevitable
The burden of proof in a case like this is very high. Lake's lawyers would have to prove fraud, intent, and that the vote count affected by fraud would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.
I find the idea of "intent" to be absurd. If one is tampering with voting machines what possible intent could there be other than to effect the outcome of the election? But that's AZ law.
I won't bag on the judge at all. He agreed to hear the case probably knowing the political implications and that it would be appealed. And he is right. Lake's case didn't meet the burden of proof. I think it was specifically how many affected votes there were determining the outcome of the election, and on not being able to establish malicious intent.
I think "Official Misconduct" should be applied, which happens when an government official doesn't follow legal procedures.
The law simply says "misconduct" which is very high bar to prove as it means "wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose."
Notice how neither Judge in this case or the other one would not allow the signatures to be checked?
Good luck with the appeals but let's be honest, they are going nowhere either.
The sheer magnitude and the implications of exposing and providing justice for all of this is far too great for a civilian judge to rule on and possibly make himself a target.
Election law is designed to make sure that legal challenges do not occur and if they do, they have almost no chance of success. It is the myth of fair elections that must be preserved, not fair elections themselves. There is a higher standard of proof than in a murder case and less time allowed for presentation than in a shoplifting case. To meet the standard required, the Lake team would have needed hundreds of witnesses and thousands of exhibits. They would have needed extensive discovery and access to millions of documents. A comparable civil trial would have required a minimum of six months to prepare and one month to present. It is considered more important to have continuity in government than to insure the people's choice is actually seated.
The solution is not in the civil courts but in the election itself. Those who cheat know the process and know that if you can get past election day, you are home free. They also know that if caught in malfeasance there are no meaningful penalties. For years, one party has worked diligently at the lowest levels of government to take control of the election process. They have developed and nurtured a spoils system that would be the envy of Boss Tweed and his Tammany Hall Gang. The other party has always concentrated their resources including best candidates on the top jobs and even when they win, they lack the lower level infrastructure to make meaningful change.
It seems like maybe this has to get to the Supreme Court. Then it becomes a much bigger situation and maybe a bit more exposure. Then it could set a precedent for voting fraud other places.
The courts can only argue what is presented in court by the parties. The supreme court, the same. I think they expected and actually tried to lose. I think Kari Lake was a plant. She was all about supproting the trans movement before she was a governor candidate. I think we are all being played.
If she is secretly playing for the other team wouldn’t it have been much better to just have conceded rather than bring so much attention to voter fraud?
The left seems to fear her similar to how they feared Trump. Early on in her run they tried hard to corner her about accepting the outcome of the election just like they did with Trump.
A crucial aspect of judging a person’s political character is to analyze how the radical left reacts to them.
You certainly bring up a valid concern with the trans thing. I’ve heard this but have not researched it myself yet. As I am not from Arizona it has not been a priority for me to dig too deeply into her history and such.
Its called “running the clock out”. The court challenge gives false hopium to us. We think we have a chance and like lucy, they pull the ball when we try to kick. I read the complaint and found the evidence light and lacking. The judge dismissed 8/10 and kicked her to the curb after two days. Her lawyers were disorganized and amateurish. If they were serious, they would have the best lawyers in the nation drill down. The left has meticulously studied and orchestrated theft of the voting system nationwide and their multiple angled offenses, election timelines and court speed just don’t jive to successfully challenge doctorate level thievery. We need our game upped to the same level to win our country back. Down voting reality gets nowhere. Sorry.
The SC does a judicial review that puts federal law into focus rather than state law. In this case, if successful, the federal court has the ability to audit the state election systems since they have violated the constitution by suppressing rights and due process
You never know with everything going on...watching childhood cartoons from the 80s and it seems like it's the reverse of it. Cobra vs GI Joe yet Cobra seems to be getting the upper hand each time or MASK vs VENOM. Same thing.
They made a legal argument based on the law rather than reply to the judges request
Yep. Appeal is where you raise the case to a higher court
This was my thought exactly. Voters have a sacred right to vote, and for some, they made it impossible.
Also each count in itself must be enough to overturn.
I wonder if it's the old tactic where if it's discounted initially the general public will discount it on the basis of this ruling without checking for themselves. It's like when Biden claimed the economy was growing by millions rather than thousands but later back tracked but people continue to believe the initial incorrect reported information.
I have another question (and yes I agree that the word "intent" is not even in the Arizona law in question)...
Should not the plaintiff's attorney have immediately appealed the judge's decision to throw out 3 of the original 5 (8 out of 10?) causes of action? Does that lack of objection now make these issues moot on appeal? Because those causes of action were all very determinative.