First, the main evidence, as I understand it, required the court to conclude that something nefarious happened by inference. Her claim was the ballots must have been cleared with malice because the pace was too fast. That’s a tough case to prove.
The judge was probably feeling a lot like a cartel boss might hang him headless from an overpass if he did the right thing. Sure, that suggests judicial cowardice but most would succumb to that kind of threat. Courage is rare in our society.
But my main takeaway is the same as it was when she was screwed the first time: Kari Lake as a screaming Valkyrie for justice is probably more powerful in an information war than Kari Lake the Governor of Arizona.
Her voice is piercing and fearless.
Would I rather have seen her win? Sure. Would the best outcome for the information war be the same as her winning? I’m not so sure.
(Professor Patriot)
From Covid and Coffee (he's a lawyer)- "We have not yet heard from Lake’s group, except for a tweet saying they’d be making a big announcement today. Kari has previously sworn that, if she lost, she’d appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.
This result is predictable, even expected. When I filed my mask lawsuit against the county in 2020, I knew that it would be almost impossible that the trial judge would take on the political burden of becoming the country’s first anti-mask judge. She gave me all I could really hope for: a fairly-conducted hearing, a quick, appealable order, and she let me create the record I needed for the inevitable appeal.
Had anyone from Kari’s team asked me, I would’ve predicted the same thing for her trial. They needed to be getting all the necessary evidence into the record, but planning for the inevitable appeal. It looks like the judge did let them get the evidence in, which is a great blessing. In other words, the judge kept his hands clean, but passed the decision buck up the line — where it would’ve inevitably gone anyway.
It’s too simplistic to say the judge should’ve been courageous and ruled for Kari no matter what. His decision would’ve only carried symbolic weight, and why potentially ruin your career to make a symbol? It’s not irrational that a judge could’ve concluded it was better to help by conducting a fair trial, getting everything in the record, and letting the plaintiff take it up to the appellate court, as opposed to the defendant.
It’s true that in most cases it’s better to win at the trial level, because it is vastly easier to defend an appeal than try to get a reversal. But that calculus goes out the window in politically-charged cases like this. Believe me. This case was always going to be decided by Arizona’s Supreme Court, one way or the other, regardless of what happened at trial."
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/moving-day-tuesday-may-23-2023-c?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email