Kari Lake files lawsuit in bid to overturn Arizona election

[Phil9]

....and not a ripple was seen this night.

that's too bad Phil. For a minute I thought you might've been catching on. Looks like you are goin to have to work out that childhood trauma if you want to make any progress this year.











Sorry bro, I guess sarcasm falls from my mouth like stupidity falls from yours.

Cheers

Is your meltdown concluded yet?



PS: Karen Lake still lost. 😁

[Paul Kreul]

Is your meltdown concluded yet?



PS: Karen Lake still lost. ������

is this your ADHD kicking in that you spoke of in the other thread..?
Do you think the childhood trauma you suffered could be the root of it?
Honestly kinda worried about you Phil...don't click on that suicide thread in the main MISC buddy. Hash it out here. srs

[Phil9]

is this your ADHD kicking in that you spoke of in the other thread..?
Do you think the childhood trauma you suffered could be the root of it?
Honestly kinda worried about you Phil...don't click on that suicide thread in the main MISC buddy. Hash it out here. srs

If there’s anyone that is on the verge of roping, it’s you buddy. You are sounding increasingly frantic. Seek help (No, not from me).

[Paul Kreul]

If there’s anyone that is on the verge of roping, it’s you buddy. You are sounding increasingly frantic. Seek help (No, not from me).

Phil I extended a hand to try and help with your childhood trauma, and this is the attitude I get in return?
Phil what's really bothering you, you seem so angry at the world, c'mon buddy..just let it out..

[Phil9]

Phil I extended a hand to try and help with your childhood trauma, and this is the attitude I get in return?
Phil what's really bothering you, you seem so angry at the world, c'mon buddy..just let it out..

Unhinged. Get mental help.



PS: Governor Hobbs. 😁

[Paul Kreul]

Unhinged. Get mental help.



PS: Governor Hobbs. ������

Okay Phil, if you're not ready to take those first steps and confront your trauma here, maybe you can reach out to someone local around you.
Did you ever confront your parents btw? srs

[Phil9]

Marc Elias is a Demon.

Damn Rudy G got fat.

[Stizzel]

Marc Elias is a Demon.

Yeah he's a scumbag but so are the republicans. The republicans just don't have their legal game on point like he does. The whole basis of how our society is supposed to work is regular people hold their state legislatures accountable, and those legislatures run everything. Obviously that was a bad idea but if you want to take the system back without tearing it down and starting over, that's how you do it. The issue has always been that the sort of upstanding regular citizens that this system counts on to control it have always been more interested in raising their families, as they should be. With this level of corruption maybe they wake up and put their foot down but we'll see.

Go read the ruling dimwit.

I read the initial decision, watched the trial, and read the judge's final decision. There's a reason no one can substantively challenge this; you go no deeper than 'the judge dismissed the case so it's over'. If you're able to objectively reach a different conclusion than I did based on the facts presented feel free to do so. If all you can do is repeat the most basic aspects of the judge's ruling with no capacity to critique whether you agree or disagree with it then congratulations, you're an NPC.

Did Australian courts ever give you permission to go outside? Maybe you just need some sunlight.

[Phil9]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lake-dele...145038058.html



Karen is coming off as a total sociopath. Sad!

[Phil9]

Yeah he's a scumbag but so are the republicans. The republicans just don't have their legal game on point like he does. The whole basis of how our society is supposed to work is regular people hold their state legislatures accountable, and those legislatures run everything. Obviously that was a bad idea but if you want to take the system back without tearing it down and starting over, that's how you do it. The issue has always been that the sort of upstanding regular citizens that this system counts on to control it have always been more interested in raising their families, as they should be. With this level of corruption maybe they wake up and put their foot down but we'll see.



I read the initial decision, watched the trial, and read the judge's final decision. There's a reason no one can substantively challenge this; you go no deeper than 'the judge dismissed the case so it's over'. If you're able to objectively reach a different conclusion than I did based on the facts presented feel free to do so. If all you can do is repeat the most basic aspects of the judge's ruling with no capacity to critique whether you agree or disagree with it then congratulations, you're an NPC.

Did Australian courts ever give you permission to go outside? Maybe you just need some sunlight.

Fat James Carville with more autistic rambling.

[Jayarbie]

The allegation was that katie hobbs used her position as SOS to engage in misconduct and violate the 1st amendment and this is so obviously the case that the judge had to say the SOS can engage in misconduct and violate the 1st amendment to dismiss it

People that oppose Hobbs effectively paid her via taxes to have themselves silenced. This is acceptable in the liberal/fake libertarian America I guess but its not even remitely similar to the muh russia story

Or that the first allegation was completely ridiculous.

[Jayarbie]

The way that you’ve laid out what took place in 2016 and 2020 makes me question if you were around for either…

Russia allegedly bought some ******** memes in 2016 which were both pro-trump and pro-Clinton, along with anti-both candidates.

The idea that Russia hacked the dnc was based on a criwdstrike draft report, of which the owner said under oath that he had no direct evidence that it was actually Russia.

The only CT from 2016 was the trump colluded with Russia to win, the dossier, the entire mueller probe, etc.

The only CT from 2020 was that the laptop didn’t belong to hunter and that it was Russian propaganda.

The Russian social media campaign was very heavily tilted towards Trump. I don't know who hacked the DNC. I didn't say anything at all about that, and there was no collusion, just their social media campaign, which was quite successful if you look at the sheer number of gullible rubes who actually bought into the pizzagate thing.

The only CT from 2020 was Hunter's laptop? Not the foreign servers that were changing votes? Not the Chinese watermarks? Not the hundreds of thousands of supposedly fake votes? My God, you're delusional. The 2020 CT was directed by the President and led to a violent insurrection.

[Phil9]

The Russian social media campaign was very heavily tilted towards Trump. I don't know who hacked the DNC. I didn't say anything at all about that, and there was no collusion, just their social media campaign, which was quite successful if you look at the sheer number of gullible rubes who actually bought into the pizzagate thing.

The only CT from 2020 was Hunter's laptop? Not the foreign servers that were changing votes? Not the Chinese watermarks? Not the hundreds of thousands of supposedly fake votes? My God, you're delusional. The 2020 CT was directed by the President and led to a violent insurrection.

Hugo Chavez was somehow involved from what I remember. Impressive if true.

[Stizzel]

Or that the first allegation was completely ridiculous.

Do all fake libertarians think it's cool for a government official to use their position to pressure private companies in favor of one party to an election or is that just you

[Weightaholic]

I read the initial decision, watched the trial, and read the judge's final decision. There's a reason no one can substantively challenge this; you go no deeper than 'the judge dismissed the case so it's over'. If you're able to objectively reach a different conclusion than I did based on the facts presented feel free to do so. If all you can do is repeat the most basic aspects of the judge's ruling with no capacity to critique whether you agree or disagree with it then congratulations, you're an NPC.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Considering all evidence presented, the Court finds as follows:
As to Count II – Illegal BOD Printer/Tabulator Configurations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
As to Count IV – Chain of Custody Violations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election.

So, despite the fact that there was no clear and convincing evidence of ANY of Kari Lake's assertions, you still think that the judge should have overturned election results? Not really sure where you think you are going with this, but keep going. Dig up!

[Maestro]

Katie Hobbs ran her own election, and that election experienced significant problems which benefitted her.

This is quite literally a line by line repeat of what happened with Brian Kemp in his Georgia election in 2020. He was in charge of the the election committee AND won his seat. Was there election fraud in his case?

[Phil9]

This is quite literally a line by line repeat of what happened with Brian Kemp in his Georgia election in 2020. He was in charge of the the election committee AND won his seat. Was there election fraud in his case?

You can say this about any SoS that runs for office in a statewide election, whether for re-election or a different seat. But it didn't matter until Karen Lake lost.


On a similar note, the highly touted Florida allows the governor to choose the SoS who then oversees elections. Strange how that never gets called out for conflict of interest [A governor appointing the person who may oversee their re-election].

[Stizzel]

So, despite the fact that there was no clear and convincing evidence of ANY of Kari Lake's assertions, you still think that the judge should have overturned election results? Not really sure where you think you are going with this, but keep going. Dig up!

Yes weighty, again, the judge set the requirement to prove this to include proving that they were done intentionally by someone. No one on Hobbs team even denied any of it happened; in fact they admitted to most of it. Her own lawyers were objecting to themselves because they were making the case for Lake. They weren't just able to meet that intentionality requirement.

Katie Hobbs ran her own election and that election experienced significant problems that worked in her favor. Given those facts I don't even have to bring up intentionality, it's obvious, but the judge demanded 'clear and concise evidence'.

From the post you're replying to:

I read the initial decision, watched the trial, and read the judge's final decision. There's a reason no one can substantively challenge this; you go no deeper than 'the judge dismissed the case so it's over'. If you're able to objectively reach a different conclusion than I did based on the facts presented feel free to do so. If all you can do is repeat the most basic aspects of the judge's ruling with no capacity to critique whether you agree or disagree with it then congratulations, you're an NPC.

This is quite literally a line by line repeat of what happened with Brian Kemp in his Georgia election in 2020. He was in charge of the the election committee AND won his seat. Was there election fraud in his case?

Brian Kemp recused himself so I have no idea what you're talking about. Why lie? I don't get it. If you can bring some receipts I'm unaware of then sure, but it seems like you're just being intentionally dishonest for some reason.

[Phil9]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/u...ey-abrams.html



Kemp didn’t “recuse” himself until the election was over. Snizzel lying as usual.

[Weightaholic]

Yes weighty, again, the judge set the requirement to prove this to include proving that they were done intentionally by someone. No one on Hobbs team even denied any of it happened; in fact they admitted to most of it. Her own lawyers were objecting to themselves because they were making the case for Lake. They weren't just able to meet that intentionality requirement.

Katie Hobbs ran her own election and that election experienced significant problems that worked in her favor. Given those facts I don't even have to bring up intentionality, it's obvious, but the judge demanded 'clear and concise evidence'.

From the post you're replying to:

I read the initial decision, watched the trial, and read the judge's final decision. There's a reason no one can substantively challenge this; you go no deeper than 'the judge dismissed the case so it's over'. If you're able to objectively reach a different conclusion than I did based on the facts presented feel free to do so. If all you can do is repeat the most basic aspects of the judge's ruling with no capacity to critique whether you agree or disagree with it then congratulations, you're an NPC.

Full ruling.

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.go...74764564181393

You're misrepresnting the reasoning behind it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and not call you a liar, and instead just assume you're stupid.

[Phil9]

Full ruling.

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.go...74764564181393

You're misrepresnting the reasoning behind it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and not call you a liar, and instead just assume you're stupid.

lol

[Stizzel]

Full ruling.

https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.go...74764564181393

You're misrepresnting the reasoning behind it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and not call you a liar, and instead just assume you're stupid.

I have read it. For example:

1) That the alleged misconduct – whether the BOD printer irregularities, or the ostensible
failure to abide by county election procedures – was an intentional act. See Findley, 35
Ariz. at 269.
2) That the misconduct was an intentional act conducted by a person covered by A.R.S. §
16-672(A)(1), that is – an “officer making or participating in a canvass.”
3) That the misconduct was intended to change the result of the November 2022 General
Election. See Findley, 35 Ariz. at 269.
4) That the misconduct did, in fact, change the result of that election. See Grounds, 67 Ariz.
at 189.

Again, no one is even denying that these things happened. The judge is hiding behind 'intent'. For what it's worth, I think you're both dishonest and stupid at the same time.

[Phil9]

"Hiding behind intent."


LOL.

[Phil9]

4) That the misconduct did, in fact, change the result of that election. See Grounds, 67 Ariz.
at 189.

Again, no one is even denying that these things happened. The judge is hiding behind 'intent'. For what it's worth, I think you're both dishonest and stupid at the same time.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Considering all evidence presented, the Court finds as follows:
As to Count II – Illegal BOD Printer/Tabulator Configurations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of
A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was
committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-
672(A)(1).
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was
intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact
affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
As to Count IV – Chain of Custody Violations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of
A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was
committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-
672(A)(1).
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2022-095403 12/24/2022
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 10
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was
intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact
affect the result of the 2022 General Election.

Kari Lake lost, Snizzy. Time to take the L, cry, and move on.

[Weightaholic]

The judge is hiding behind 'intent'.

The judge set out his reasons. You just don't like them, and are deliberately and fraudulently trying to frame it as being wholly about intent. Which is flat out incorrect.

Let me bold some of the relevant portions for you.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Considering all evidence presented, the Court finds as follows:
As to Count II – Illegal BOD Printer/Tabulator Configurations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
As to Count IV – Chain of Custody Violations:
a. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
b. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).
c. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct was intended to affect the result of the 2022 General Election.
d. The Court DOES NOT find clear and convincing evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election.

Anyone with even half a brain doesn't expect a judge to overturn an election result based on a lack of "clear and convincing" evidence of misconduct. Intent or otherwise, no. fcking. evidence.

No evidence of misconduct that affected the result = Stizzel "it was her turn!"

[Phil9]

Snizzel get homie schooled by an Aussie on state law.

The judge set out his reasons. You just don't like them, and are deliberately and fraudulently trying to frame it as being wholly about intent. Which is flat out incorrect.

Let me bold some of the relevant portions for you.



Anyone with even half a brain doesn't expect a judge to overturn an election result based on a lack of "clear and convincing" evidence of misconduct. Intent or otherwise, no. fcking. evidence.

No evidence of misconduct that affected the result = Stizzel "it was her turn!"

Sorry brah, any minor procedural errors that occur in a county must result in a brand new statewide election that will cost millions to facilitate.

[Tommy W.]

Sorry brah, any minor procedural errors that occur in a county must result in a brand new statewide election that will cost millions to facilitate.

minor
procedural
errors

Oh whoops…

Brah? Wut you turning Hawaiian on us, lol.

[Phil9]

minor
procedural
errors

Oh whoops…

Brah? Wut you turning Hawaiian on us, lol.

Boomer please.

[Tommy W.]

Boomer please.

F a g g o t please

[Stizzel]

The judge set out his reasons. You just don't like them, and are deliberately and fraudulently trying to frame it as being wholly about intent. Which is flat out incorrect.

Let me bold some of the relevant portions for you.



Anyone with even half a brain doesn't expect a judge to overturn an election result based on a lack of "clear and convincing" evidence of misconduct. Intent or otherwise, no. fcking. evidence.

No evidence of misconduct that affected the result = Stizzel "it was her turn!"

The judge explains on just about every page of that ruling that he feels intent is required to prove misconduct stupid. What is your position exactly anyway? That these errors didn't happen, or that they did but they're not illegal? The judge is saying the latter, I'm saying the former. I'm not sure you're smart enough to even understand the difference.