Kari Lake Wraps Up Trial With No Clear Evidence to Overturn Election

[Skylar]

Not sure what is in it for LW loons? so far I am down big 6 figures in wealth.

I dont like being cheated. Im out//

When you muster the courage to leave your little echo chamber, we'll be here to school you again, tinfoil.

 

[MarathonMike]

The cool thing about Democrats in control of the courts is that any and all evidence is summarily dismissed. That's one of several reasons why this country is circling the drain.

 

[Skylar]

The cool thing about Democrats in control of the courts is that any and all evidence is summarily dismissed. That's one of several reasons why this country is circling the drain.

Or......speculation, supposition, and random conspiracy theories aren't evidence. Who appointed the judge doesn't seem to have much relevance to the outcome of Big Lie cases.

If they're Trump appointees, the cases are laughed out of court.

If they're Bush appointees, the cases are laughed out of court.

If they're an Obama appointee, the cases are laughed out of court.

If they're a republican governor appointee, the cases are laughed out of court.

Hell, even the conservative controlled Supreme Court wouldn't give the Big Lie the time of day.

Even Trump has dismissed one of his own cases.

Pseudo-legal garbage is pseudo-legal garbage.

 

[Skylar]

Both the judge who ruled against Kari Lake in Superior court (Judge Peter Thompson) AND the chief judge who wrote the appellant court's ruling tossing Lake's appeal (Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani)....

.....were appointed by Republican Jan Brewer.

Its not the party. Its that the Big Lie legal arguments are pureed dogshit.

 

[Lastamender]

Nope. That's what you imagine the legal standards are.....citing whatever delusional batshit you want to make up.

But no judge is bound to your delusions. Or the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. Here's the standard that Lake was *actually* held to in her claims of a stolen election:



Remember, and this point is fundamental:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I know that election had no integrity and the results are invalid because of the failures in equipment in itself.

 

[Skylar]

I know that election had no integrity and the results are invalid because of the failures in equipment in itself.

You know that you're making up pseudo-legal gibberish that has nothing to do with this law....

...and then lamenting that the courts followed the actual law rather than your made-up gibberish.

Expect a vastly disappointing life.

 

[Lastamender]

They're nearing 70 attempts in front of a judge now, and they STILL don't understand that "A rumor I heard" + "a graph I saw on the internet" + "this photo of maybe someone doing something wrong" + "a theory from Mr. Pillow" + "this claim in a movie by a Trumpster" + "a report I saw on Tucker" is not considered "evidence" or proof of a crime in an ACTUAL COURT.

When are you going to realize that excuse means nothing. No huge questions were ever answered. --

You know that you're making up pseudo-legal gibberish that has nothing to do with this law....

...and then lamenting that the courts followed the actual law rather than your made-up gibberish.

Expect a vastly disappointing life.

What I said are facts. Equipment did fail. Also Maricopa repair times are a joke. The machines will tell you that. The amount of votes affected are more than enough to elect Lake. That makes the outcome uncertain to say the least.

 

[Skylar]

What I said are facts. Equipment did fail. Also Maricopa repair times are a joke. The machines will tell you that. The amount of votes affected are more than enough to elect Lake. That makes the outcome uncertain to say the least.

Says you, citing yourself. The judge on the other hand contradicted you explicitly:

“Plaintiff must show at trial that the [Election Day] printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome,” the judge said of the first remaining count in Monday’s order."

Arizona judge dismisses most of Kari Lake’s lawsuit challenging election results

An Arizona judge has dismissed most of Kari Lake’s election lawsuit contesting the victory of her opponent, Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs (D), after Lake for weeks seized on unproven voter fraud allegatio…

thehill.com

You're literally offering us your imagination as the law. Unsurprisingly, republican appointed judge Peter Thompson followed Arizona law over your imagination.

Try again.

 

[Lastamender]

Says you, citing yourself. The judge on the other hand contradicted you explicitly:


You're literally offering us your imagination as the law. Unsurprisingly, republican appointed judge Peter Thompson followed Arizona law over your imagination.

Try again.

The judge believed what Maricopa said. It was never verified by any investigation. Mricopa has been caught lying a few times. I bet the judge knows that too.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

They're nearing 70 attempts in front of a judge now, and they STILL don't understand that "A rumor I heard" + "a graph I saw on the internet" + "this photo of maybe someone doing something wrong" + "a theory from Mr. Pillow" + "this claim in a movie by a Trumpster" + "a report I saw on Tucker" is not considered "evidence" or proof of a crime in an ACTUAL COURT.

Now that's just commie talk.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The judge believed what Maricopa said. It was never verified by any investigation. Mricopa has been caught lying a few times. I bet the judge knows that too.

You're drunk, dad. Go home.

 

[Skylar]

The judge believed what Maricopa said. It was never verified by any investigation. Mricopa has been caught lying a few times. I bet the judge knows that too.

More accurately, ALL the judges (all 4 of them), didn't believe what Kari Lake said. As she didn't have the evidence to prove it.

Which is your failure too. You keep making up imaginary conspiracies without evidence.....then desperately scrambling to find anything to support your imagination.

It works about as well for you as it does for Kari.

 

[Lastamender]

You're drunk, dad. Go home.

I don't drink.

 

[Lastamender]

More accurately, ALL the judges (all 4 of them), didn't believe what Kari Lake said. As she didn't have the evidence to prove it.

Which is your failure too. You keep making up imaginary conspiracies without evidence.....then desperately scrambling to find anything to support your imagination.

It works about as well for you as it does for Kari.

They wanted her to prove it was intentional. All she did is prove how badly the election was run. The judge should have reamed Maricopa's ass.

 

[Skylar]

I don't drink.

It certainly couldn't hurt the arguments you've offered here.

Like when you literally made up a 'standard of law', invented whole from your imagination.

That seemed drunk AF.

 

[Skylar]

They wanted her to prove it was intentional. All she did is prove how badly the election was run. The judge should have reamed Maricopa's ass.

That AND the the malfunctions were directed to affect the results of the election AND that such actions did effect the outcome.

Says who? Says republican appointed judge Peter Thompson:

“Plaintiff must show at trial that the [Election Day] printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome,” the judge said of the first remaining count in Monday’s order.


And Lake failed to show ANY such thing. Which, of course, is why is she lost.

 

[leftwinger]

Translation: You made up a conspiracy without evidence. And now demand we disprove what you imagined.

So much for your 'war'.

Statistical Analysis shows you couldn't be more wrong. Nationwide fraud. Yet you and your ilk wont look or block an

That AND the the malfunctions were directed to affect the results of the election AND that such actions did effect the outcome.

Says who? Says republican appointed judge Peter Thompson:

“Plaintiff must show at trial that the [Election Day] printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome,” the judge said of the first remaining count in Monday’s order.


And Lake failed to show ANY such thing. Which, of course, is why is she lost.

Judges were bribed too. Many prior to the bench. Read it and weep.

 

[Skylar]

Statistical Analysis shows you couldn't be more wrong. Nationwide fraud. Yet you and your ilk wont look or block an



Judges were bribed too. Many prior to the bench. Read it and weep.

'Judges were bribed'.....says you, citing your imagination.

Personal delusion is not a standard of evidence.

Ask Kari Lake.

 

[Lastamender]

That AND the the malfunctions were directed to affect the results of the election AND that such actions did effect the outcome.

Says who? Says republican appointed judge Peter Thompson:

“Plaintiff must show at trial that the [Election Day] printer malfunctions were intentional, and directed to affect the results of the election, and that such actions did actually affect the outcome,” the judge said of the first remaining count in Monday’s order.


And Lake failed to show ANY such thing. Which, of course, is why is she lost.

The judge is wrong.

 

[Skylar]

The judge is wrong.

The appellant court disagrees.

"her request for relief fails because the evidence presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the election results.”

Why would I ignore ALL the judges, including the appellant court, and instead believe you?

Remember.....you don't actually know what you're talking about. It tends to hamper your arguments.