Kari Lake WINS Right to Bring Election Fraud Case to Trial! - Judge DENIES Motion To Dismiss

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind


Typical, and what I'd expect out of an election fraud denier. You know perfectly well that I don't live in Arizona, but of course, you pull out the old chestnut, "And, of course, you have PROOF of this?" You carefully didn't answer my ques

No, I don't have any idea where you live or anything what-so=ever about you. However, I do know that there is a fundamental principle at work which is stated as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, your profile says you live in Southern Illinois. I appologize. I do know where you live now that I look at your claim. So what? You ask if I have some personal knowledge of Arizona but you know where I live too don't you? (of course I DO have knowledge of voting in Arizona, but that was a lifetime ago)

EDIT2: By the way: YOU are the one that demanded proof from ME. Of course I cannot prove a negative, and the burden of proof falls on the accuser, which is YOU.

You make a claim of certainty without proof and expect everyone to assume guilt. It doesn't work that way.

You ask a question of me demanding that I prove a negative, which is logically absurd.

YOU are the one making the allegations of fraud here.

Put up or shut up.

Never mind. I'm not wasting any more time with an ***** like you.

"I'm taking my ball and going home" might work in 3rd grade, but if you are a 3rd grader I suggest you go ask your mommy for permission before posting on the adults web site.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Cornczech


KATIE HobbGoblin Hobbs was the Secretary of state -

Katie Hobbs was NOT running the election in Maricopa County - or any other county for that matter.

Perhaps she shouldn’t have broken the law?

What law are you accusing her of breaking?

Too funny to see who pops up to defend this trash

You are easily amused.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: knoxie

You mean Rudy gave the Jan 6th committee his opinion?


That's nice

No. He spouted bull feces to the media, which you all lapped up like puppy dogs at a milk bowl, but when put under oath wouldn't / couldn't back it up.

He had the PERFECT venue to present his evidence you claim has been denied to him in court, and he blew it completely.

originally posted by: SuperSaturn
a reply to: Boadicea

I just don't like the mentality of politicians like trump or hillary who throw these allegations out there to indefinetly cast doubt on the democratic system and create mass distrust and hate for each party.

What you say sounds 'on the surface' to be reasonable. BUT and its a big but The problem is that you drag Hillary into the discussion.

Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with the election fraud allegations, and when you try to inject stupid 'both-sides-ism' into it you are LYING to the readers.

Stop it. Stop it now.

originally posted by: NormalGuyCrazyWorld

... snippity snip snip snip ...

I just don't get it... why do you have a problem with your country being "Great"?

'We" don't. But why do you think it isn't "Great"?

What do you want it to be, exactly... "Mediocre"? "Adequate"? "A Door Mat"?

"We" want it to be exactly what it has always been: "Great". When exactly do you think it stopped being "Great"?

Our country is supposed to be great because of the Constitutional FREEDOMS we once had

Yup. So what Constitutional FREEDOMS do you think we no longer have? (I mean besides the Constitutional right to privacy in women's medical decisions, of course, so what else?).

- that all ended once the govt started weaponizing its alphabet agencies against 1 political side.

Oh, you mean like the 45th President's IRS auditing his ex-FBI directors. I sorta see what you mean there, but which '1 political side' were they on?

I also don't understand - if you are SO CONFIDENT these elections had no tomfoolery, then why resist the inquiry so hard?

No election can be 100% free from tomfoolery. You cannot prove a negative. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence - but democracy doesn't not run on unfounded allegations.

Any resistance is due to the lack of evidence that tomfoolery played any part in the decision. 2 fraudulent votes in Pennsylvania didn't swing the election in Trump's favor. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stop 2 votes out of 20 million or whatever it was is a waste of money, time, and angst. The guys were caught after the fact, you know it and 'we' know it - the system worked (and the Texas Governor owes Pennsylvania that bounty money). They are paying for their crime, and their crime didn't affect the outcome. Understand that laws against murder don't prevent all murders either. Call us when you have EVIDENCE that otherwise undetected fraud affected the outcome.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Boadicea

Just seeing Hobbs testify under oath will be worth it.

You've been ripped off again.

So how many of the NFT's did you buy?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: face23785

Truth. I love when people cry about the "source" when the source is often not actually the outlet the link goes to.

Intellectually weak people have nothing else though. It's not like they're gonna argue the subject matter.

Exactly! We're on a discussion forum to talk about issues... then someone cries about the source instead of discussing the issue 🙄

Anyone is welcome to post an alternate source, or an opposing source, or just their opinion with no source at all. Then we discuss. That's how this works!

When the issue is a beat up and the source is the one doing the beat up there is nothing to discuss.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

They did, over 50 times. The evidence wasn't even looked at and every single case was dismissed. EVERY SINGLE CASE. You don't know what the evidence is and neither do I. But.... it was not looked at.

Actually, NO they didn't present evidence because there wasn't any evidence. And Rudy even admitted it.

You can say anything as long as it isn't under oath and the MAGA folk will eat it up, but once somebody gets under oath the 'evidence' seems to vanish into the smoke and mirrors.

Rudy swore up and down, and even produced 'affidavits' which purported to contain evidence (but which actually only contained mistaken (I'm being generous) miss-impressions of standard procedure). But when Rudy was placed under oath, and given the opportunity to present his ACTUAL evidence in a venue that would actually make a difference, he folded like a cheap umbrella and admitted there there was no evidence and there never was.

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dashen

I think the election would be "voided", due to gross incompetence, instead of "overturned" due to fraud. A new election would be held.
...

Well no. The judge did dismiss 8 out of 10 counts precisely because he can't order new elections, so that's for sure not going to happen.

The only two claims, she first will have to prove, are that an employee illegaly interfered with the printer, and that Runbeck added ballots where 'receipts of delivery were not maintained'.
The first one I think will be everything but impossible to prove, at least at the moment I can't see how.
And the second in no way implies the ballots delivered were in any way illegal themselves.

I wanted to quote your entire post for context. This

And the second in no way implies the ballots delivered were in any way illegal themselves.

is incorrect.

That there is no valid chain of custody for the ballots from the 2022 AZ election implies exactly that, very strongly.

Every one of those ballots might have been meticulously faked. They might have been flown around the sun in a black triangle and then stopped by Mar-a-Lago for Trump to fondle (the horror!) before being stored. There is no one who can confidently say any different, because those ballots have no valid chain of custody.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

They did, over 50 times. The evidence wasn't even looked at and every single case was dismissed. EVERY SINGLE CASE. You don't know what the evidence is and neither do I. But.... it was not looked at.

Actually, NO they didn't present evidence because there wasn't any evidence. And Rudy even admitted it.

You can say anything as long as it isn't under oath and the MAGA folk will eat it up, but once somebody gets under oath the 'evidence' seems to vanish into the smoke and mirrors.

Rudy swore up and down, and even produced 'affidavits' which purported to contain evidence (but which actually only contained mistaken (I'm being generous) miss-impressions of standard procedure). But when Rudy was placed under oath, and given the opportunity to present his ACTUAL evidence in a venue that would actually make a difference, he folded like a cheap umbrella and admitted there there was no evidence and there never was.

Hey Mr. no evidence guy. What do you think about the chain of custody claims from the 2020 election? Wouldn't the lack of a valid chain of custody for election ballots be cause for concern?

What about observers being stymied? We're not talking about some observer going nuts and trying to trash the place or fight with election officials. I'm talking about observers attempting to perform their duties as observers in what is supposed to be a protected process that is supposed to help insure election integrity and instill confidence in our election system. Shouldn't the fact that reasonable observers were interfered with concern us?

a reply to: rnaa

When the issue is a beat up and the source is the one doing the beat up there is nothing to discuss.

That doesn't even make sense... "A beat up"? Now you're just making words up and refusing to acknowledge the whole truth. Specifically, the truths and facts that lying liars don't want known.

The County Recorder, Stephen Richer, testified under oath and penalty of perjury that ballots were not counted and recorded by precincts before being sent to Runbeck.

Richer also outright lied when he denied starting and working on a PAC with the sole purpose of beating Kari and other election integrity candidates.

An expert testified that the printing problems were a direct result of intentional program changes, the "scripts" to be specific.

Multiple election workers-- the same election workers YOU praised as so conscientious-- have attested to multiple additional violations of law and practice. An overwhelming number had NO CONFIDENCE in the election and its outcome.

If TGP is the only one reporting the truth, I'll damn well be reading AND POSTING from TGP. Only fools, lying liars and cheating cheaters refuse the truth no matter the messenger.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

That there is no valid chain of custody for the ballots from the 2022 AZ election implies exactly that, very strongly.

Every one of those ballots might have been meticulously faked. They might have been flown around the sun in a black triangle and then stopped by Mar-a-Lago for Trump to fondle (the horror!) before being stored. There is no one who can confidently say any different, because those ballots have no valid chain of custody.

You are exactly right. Every single one of those ballots is now illegal and illegitimate. Including legal and legitimate ballots from legal and legitimate voters. Ballots could have been removed, altered, or added.

Runbeck -- the ballot printer with full access to voter rolls -- is illegally receiving ballots with no chain-of-custody. They have the means, the motives, and the opportunity to do all kinds of damage.

It's shameful and unconscionable.

a reply to: Boadicea

Funny how things come full circle sometimes, isn't it?
I mean if gov institutions are good at one thing it's bureaucracy.
And here we have Runbeck as neoliberal privatisation proxy causing direct harm to gov institutions.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

As I wrote that it was still maintained that the only issue with it was delivery receipts missing. I didn't have time to follow it, I don't know if that has changed.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Boadicea

Funny how things come full circle sometimes, isn't it?
I mean if gov institutions are good at one thing it's bureaucracy.
And here we have Runbeck as neoliberal privatisation proxy causing direct harm to gov institutions.

I would say "with" govt institutions... but your point is well taken.

Public/private partnerships are risky for lots of reasons. Private companies can do things govt agencies cannot.... but really really want to.

It's like dancing with the devil.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

As I wrote that it was still maintained that the only issue with it was delivery receipts missing. I didn't have time to follow it, I don't know if that has changed.

According to the County Recorder, Stephen Richer, no tally is made of the mail-in ballots before being sent to Runbeck, as attested to previously by election workers and a Runbeck whistleblower.

We have no idea how many ballots were transported to Runbeck. We have no idea how many ballots Runbeck received..

We do know that there are discrepancies in how many ballots the County recorded and how many ballots the Secretary of State’s Office claimed they had from Maricopa... somehow the Secretary of State’s Office had about 16,000 MORE ballots from Maricopa than the County recorded.
We also know that 2 days after the election, the total number of ballots to be counted increased by 25,000 ballots with no explanation.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: knoxie

You mean Rudy gave the Jan 6th committee his opinion?


That's nice

No. He spouted bull feces to the media, which you all lapped up like puppy dogs at a milk bowl, but when put under oath wouldn't / couldn't back it up.

He had the PERFECT venue to present his evidence you claim has been denied to him in court, and he blew it completely.

That's nice

It's the best and the most we can expect, and it should be enough to resolve the issues at hand.

Sad that I'm so happy we've gotten this far. Sign of our times.




For sure. I hope we hear more updates on this.

Without any court cases allowing proof to be presented, how would anyone know ?

a reply to: xuenchen

So back in the day when you all were proclaiming 5d chess because his legal strategy was too NOT show evidence, in order to move the cases up the courts to the supreme court..... About all that? Yeah about all that??? What do you have to say about all that now that you guys are now claiming the courts would not look at evidence?

You cannot have it both ways?

a reply to: franklen

Well one of those thrown out cases in GA is being recalled. Plus it's tough when certain lawyers omit just enough points to lose a hearing intentionally 😎

And simmer down, Trump isn't in power anymore 🤣

What is everybody so scared of ?🤣