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

the problem with evidence is sometimes it is hard to get but you know how to get it. So, if you know someone committed a crime you can build a case. With the elections, you could not do that. Based on 'how it has always been' it went forward with certification. It should not have.

That is the Catch-22 here. There is no real way to 'pause' although,

Now what is worse is how soon 2000 is forgotten. When they attempted to certify on 1/6 20 House Members objected to the recount in Florida. Supreme Court stepped in also. Even had new electors lined up in Florida....So.....

why not in 2020? Because Trump was re-elected and that could not happen.

If she would have just recused herself from her position and run none of this would be an issue.

Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at UW Madison, explained to the court that there was simply no real substance to any of the claims that Lake made about election-day mishaps in Maricopa County costing her the entire 2022 election.

After establishing that he had reviewed the lawsuit filed by Lake's attorneys, Mayer was asked for his opinion of its validity -- and he gave a withering response.

"My high-level response is that all the claims that were made in the complaint about the effects of voter wait times, the claims of disenfranchisement, claims about a disproportionate effect on Republicans and their voters, that they are all based on pure speculation," he explained. "There's simply no data to support any of those claims, and there's quite a bit of data that suggests this did not happen."

www.msn.com... ntp&cvid=431c383d7df3470392ac7bd49a7cd3ff

a reply to: Annee

lol

Here's data



www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Annee

Blah, blah, blah.

Show me the chain of custody law was followed.

Hint: thus far, it hasnt.

originally posted by: Annee
Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at UW Madison, explained to the court that there was simply no real substance to any of the claims that Lake made about election-day mishaps in Maricopa County costing her the entire 2022 election.

After establishing that he had reviewed the lawsuit filed by Lake's attorneys, Mayer was asked for his opinion of its validity -- and he gave a withering response.

"My high-level response is that all the claims that were made in the complaint about the effects of voter wait times, the claims of disenfranchisement, claims about a disproportionate effect on Republicans and their voters, that they are all based on pure speculation," he explained. "There's simply no data to support any of those claims, and there's quite a bit of data that suggests this did not happen."

www.msn.com... ntp&cvid=431c383d7df3470392ac7bd49a7cd3ff

Let's ignore witness testimonies and over 200k votes with no chain of custody, and just take his word for it even though he never addresses any specifics.

a reply to: Cymatic

Hopefully, whenever a Non-Corrpt judge sees that an "expert" is from University of Wisconsin in Madison, or one of the "Atlantic" think tanks, he/she immediately suspects that person is a "Liberal Liar".

a reply to: Annee

Wonder how much they paid him to come up with professional sounding double talk and ass backwards hearsay 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

Wonder how much they paid him to come up with professional sounding double talk and ass backwards hearsay 😎

Kenneth Mayer is a LIBERAL POLITICAL ACTIVIST who (for a price) testifies all over the country in situations where the GOP brings election challenges. Mayer also helps make voting so "flexible", fraudsters love the guy.

Here is an excerpt from one of MANY articles featuring Mayer since 2020. He was instrumental in setting the stage for cheating in Minnesota, by helping them pass a bill allowing ballots to be counted for up to 5 days after election day.

But banning absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day could disenfranchise more than 12,000 voters in Minnesota, according to analysis by University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor Kenneth Mayer, who provided expert testimony in the state lawsuit that resulted in the rule change.

Source: minnesotareformer.com...

Oh, WOW!

Look at all the excuses.

How unusual. That never happens coming from Trumpsters.

originally posted by: Annee
Oh, WOW!

Look at all the excuses.

How unusual. That never happens coming from Trumpsters.

Heh

Kinda like election "issues" always benefit Ds.......

Youre a meme at this point Annee.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee
Oh, WOW!

Look at all the excuses.

How unusual. That never happens coming from Trumpsters.

Heh

Kinda like election "issues" always benefit Ds.......

Youre a meme at this point Annee.

. . . and another excuse.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee
Oh, WOW!

Look at all the excuses.

How unusual. That never happens coming from Trumpsters.

Heh

Kinda like election "issues" always benefit Ds.......

Youre a meme at this point Annee.

. . . and another excuse.

YOu like to talk about excuses but youre mysteriously missing from so many of the threads lately that have flat out proven the Dems complicit and even directing many of the horrible things that are going on with our government and this country

You only pop in when you can attempt to drop a cheap non sequitur say "Trump" and then scamper off to your hole

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee
Oh, WOW!

Look at all the excuses.

How unusual. That never happens coming from Trumpsters.

Heh

Kinda like election "issues" always benefit Ds.......

Youre a meme at this point Annee.

. . . and another excuse.

Is it? Or is it an assertion?

Or maybe an uncomfortable truth?


Did you find that chain of custody while you were out grabbing the latest talking points?

originally posted by: SuperSaturn

You sure it's not just confirmation bias? Having such certainty is a bit of a red flag.

The only ones with "confirmation bias" and "totally blind" are those like you.

Tell me, what would happen if banks suddenly decided to lower "signature verification software to 40% or completely turned it off?... Because that was done by a few states.

We SAW IT LIVE in these forums how well over a hundred thousand votes that had been for President Trump at around 4 Am were taken from Trump and the EXACT SAME AMOUNTS were given to Biden...

WE SAW, and can still see videos in which poll workers blocked windows and glass doors with cardboard so noone could see what was happening inside.

For the very first time, as far as I know, ballot observers were kept 35-150 feet away. How do you confirm ballots when those that are hired to confirm them are not allowed to verify the ballots?... Ballot observers used to be able to physically watch and hold ballots to verify them... In 2020 ballot observers were not allowed to EVEN SEE/READ the ballots...

Millions of ballots were read days and weeks after the election.

Ballot harvesting occurred in a massive way ONLY FOR BIDEN and the large majority of the ballots gotten AFTER election day were for Biden which is statistically impossible. When even in states like Minessota ballot harvesters can only harvest 3 ballots, yet dozens upon dozens, and more, ballots were harvested by each mule.

Do you understand that ELECTION DAY is November 3rd, the LEGISLATURE of states are the only ones that can change election laws yet election laws were changed by officials in various states without the legislature of the states getting involved which this alone makes the 2020 election a FRAUD?...

Due to ballot harvesting, and the millions given by rich ahole liberals like Zuckerberg paid shills knew how many ballots they needed to come up with, and they had weeks, and in a few cases a month, to "harvest ballots" by going to elderly homes and LYING to elderly people telling them how "racist and evil Trump is" and "how Republicans will get rid of your Social Security, your healthcare, etc, etc..."

WE KNOW EVIL POS, mostly the left, use massive voter fraud to win.

We even have democrat leaders, like the New York election commissioner Alan Skulkin, admit they use massive voter fraud by busing the same voters from poll site to poll site even though this is ILLEGAL/A CRIME.

...
“Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud,” said Schulkin, who elaborated on the types of voter fraud that are taking place in New York.

“You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID…Like I say, people don’t realize, certain neighborhoods in particular they bus people around to vote,” said Schulkin.
...

originally posted by: Annee

. . . and another excuse.

And those like you ignore actual massive voter fraud and when people point it out you claim "those are just excuses." So long as your corrupt and pervert party wins you don't care if they cheat huh?...

Maricopa County attorney says in court, those who wait until election day to vote, are taking a big chance and will get what they deserve.

Source: gettr.com...

He Sounds like someone who has a lot of personal baggage.

a reply to: carewemust

This is insane. Really. So we should not wait to vote on election day but you can approve to receive ballots days after the election date to make sure to win.

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Analysis of a beat-up: The structuring of a sensational media story

Abstract: Media beat-ups are sensationalised stories that greatly exaggerate or misrepresent the significance of otherwise unremarkable events or issues. To illustrate how beat-ups can be analysed, a front-page story in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph newspaper is examined in terms of its venue, the journalist and the content of the story. The features of a beat-up may be less arbitrary than they appear on the surface.

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.

Yes, I believe he said that yes. Because that IS the procedure.

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.

The stated purpose was to work against election deniers and election liars, yes, but it is disingenuous to describe these people as 'election integrity candidates' because their behavior is exactly the opposite of seeking integrity, they are seeking 'fear, uncertainty, and doubt' around the elections. Kari Lake was calling the election fake months before the first ballot was cast, right from the beginning. She spent the major part of the campaign priming her followers to expect shenanigans and by gosh they were determined to find shenanigans. Keri Lake is NOT an 'election integrity candidate', she is a an election denier and liar, and a sore loser to boot.

I agree the PAC being run by an office holder is not a good look. However, this NOT an issue that the complaint before the court addresses. Keep on track.

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

The 'expert' is wrong. And after a lengthy attempt to avoid answering the direct question, the 'expert' admitted that the Maricopa County ballot handling procedures would ensure that EVERY BALLOT IS COUNTED, even in the case of a printing error.

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.

That. Just. Did. NOT. Happen.
Did you listen to the same trial broadcast I did? I understand that two (2) employees (hardly 'an overwhelming number' ) swore affidavits and were scheduled to testify. Yet the plaintiff didn't put them on the stand - why not? NOT ONE election worker testified about that. Could it be that they didn't think their story would hold up under the scrutiny of cross examination? Instead, the plaintiff called Heather Honey to talk about this. Heather Honey lives in Pennsylvania and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Arizona election. Her testimony is 100% hearsay and 100% worthless.

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.

If TGP is the only source you read, you will never know what the truth is. It is clear that you are repeating SOMEONE'S lies about what went on in the trial. I don't understand why you would think they are trustworthy - haven't you been burned by them so many times that you know what their schtick is by now?

Look, Plaintiff had the burden of proof on 2 issues: 1) that an employee illegally interfered with the printer, and 2) that Runbeck added ballots where 'receipts of delivery were not maintained'.

No such proof was provided for either of those issues - and not much that was even relevant to the issues was discussed either.

1) No employee ILLEGALLY interfered with the printer, but there were NORMAL troubleshooting procedures followed to try to get them working. No valid evidence to the contrary was presented - the 'expert' even admitted that any alleged 'interference' would have been negated by the County's backup procedures. No voter was denied the opportunity to vote - not one.

Some waited longer than others, and some may have given up, but no one was denied. If the forms couldn't be scanned by the reader, all they had to do was put it in the backup ballot box - the so called 'slot 3'. Anybody who refused to do that disenfranchised themselves - nobody else did that to them.

2) The County has the required 'receipts of delivery', period. The plaintiff's attorney gave up on this one right at the start. He asked one of the County managers, I forget who, about the 'receipts'. When the witness asked him which receipts he was talking about (there are dozens of receipt forms all through the system), the Plaintiffs lawyer, fumbled around and said 'well if you don't know what your receipts are then I'll just forget about it'. What kind of idiotic behavior is that? The lawyer doesn't know what he's talking about, someone told him, like they told you, that there weren't any receipts, and he made ZERO effort to find out what was going on. ZERO, zilch, nada.

The sole purpose of this election challenge is to audition for the VP slot in Donald Trump's fantasy. Personally I doubt it will do her much good, but what the heck, she's going to have to pay for the court costs, so less power to her.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Tell me, what would happen if banks suddenly decided to lower "signature verification software to 40% or completely turned it off?... Because that was done by a few states.

I don't know about how that is going in the USA right now, but in Australia they turned off signature verification for credit card transactions years ago - and credit card fraud went DOWN.

PIN numbers are used for electronic credit transactions and paper slips are no longer used - which suits me just fine because Cabbies used to claim that their system was down, they used paper forms instead, and overcharged me about $2000 over 2 years by screwing with the paper slips. I only discovered it when I left the company I was working for and got the final AMEX outstanding bill.

So there is that.

a reply to: rnaa

Yes, I believe he said that yes. Because that IS the procedure.

The procedure is to break chain of custody laws?

I agree the PAC being run by an office holder is not a good look. However, this NOT an issue that the complaint before the court addresses. Keep on track.

Not a good look and you agree. Part and parcel of the levied articles include malicious intent. Such as:

The stated purpose was to work against election deniers and election liars, yes,

That. Just. Did. NOT. Happen.

It most certainly did, as was testified to by the expert witness in court. IE,evidence.

The sole purpose of this election challenge is to audition for the VP slot in Donald Trump's fantasy. Personally I doubt it will do her much good, but what the heck, she's going to have to pay for the court costs, so less power to her.

And as usual, you summarize with nonsense and jackbooted notions of retribution for following the law and processes by the same court shes in.