[Merged] Kari Lake Files Lawsuit in Bid to Overturn Arizona Election Defeat

[Agent0range]

12 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

At minimum, in this case, there is tons of reason to question the legitimacy of the election. 

Mmmhmmm.  Not according to evidence beyond someone's words.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Agent0range

[Gromdor]

Hmm.  After reading her court filing, I don't think she is going to do well.  The frst piece of evidence listed is a poll and she uses a lot of "evdence" from the 2020 election which was debunked and not applicable for the 2022 election cycle or this case.

[+Razman]

There is some solid evidence , Kari's loud trumpeting mouth.

[moonman]

They should counter-sue idiots like this and put a stop to this sore loser with no evidence of vote tampering BS. It's only going to snowball. Shut the F up and try better next election, lady.

Better yet, waste people's time with crap like this and you never get to run again. Problem solved. That goes for any party (even though we all know which party is making this their go-to move as of late).

Edited December 11, 2022 by moonman

[+Paranoid Android]

7 hours ago, Agent0range said:

That's how the judicial system works.  You present your evidence (or lack thereof) and a judge decides if it's good enough to go to trial.  These cases have been thrown out by both D and R judges...because there is just no evidence.

That's only how the system works if the Court deems that you have Standing.  Once they agree with that,  they'll happily look at the evidence and decide whether there's enough to bring to trial!

If the case is dismissed on Standing,  you don't get a chance to present evidence,  the court says "you don't have standing  we don't care what your evidence may or may not be". 

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. . Despite this,  people still erroneously believe that the suits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

For the record,  I don't believe there was significant enough fraud to change the outcome of the election, so don't take this reply to somehow be evidence that I'm an election denier,  I'm simply addressing a claim that the courts all looked at the available evidence and ruled the evidence insufficient for trial,  because that's not what happened at all,  for the most part!

Edited December 11, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[lightly]

Why do these tabulators only mistabulate Republican votes?    It’s absurd.

[Golden Duck]

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's only how the system works if the Court deems that you have Standing.  Once they agree with that,  they'll happily look at the evidence and decide whether there's enough to bring to trial!

If the case is dismissed on Standing,  you don't get a chance to present evidence,  the court says "you don't have standing  we don't care what your evidence may or may not be". 

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. . Despite this,  people still erroneously believe that the suits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

For the record,  I don't believe there was significant enough fraud to change the outcome of the election, so don't take this reply to somehow be evidence that I'm an election denier,  I'm simply addressing a claim that the courts all looked at the available evidence and ruled the evidence insufficient for trial,  because that's not what happened at all,  for the most part!

Demonstrating you have no idea about "standing" again.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just now, lightly said:

Why do these tabulators only mistabulate Republican votes?    It’s absurd.

Because it’s a pro-Democrat conspiracy. Obviously. 

[Golden Duck]

Just now, lightly said:

Why do these tabulators only mistabulate Republican votes?    It’s absurd.

Maybe they can't colour within the lines?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Agent0range]

50 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. . Despite this,  people still erroneously believe that the suits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

You are going to need to provide a link to back that up.  Rudy and the Kraken presented evidence to multiple courts.  

[Agent0range]

53 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's only how the system works if the Court deems that you have Standing.  Once they agree with that,  they'll happily look at the evidence and decide whether there's enough to bring to trial!

If the case is dismissed on Standing,  you don't get a chance to present evidence,  the court says "you don't have standing  we don't care what your evidence may or may not be". 

The vast majority of cases that were dealt with after the election were dismissed on Standing  and the Court didn't even look at the evidence. . Despite this,  people still erroneously believe that the suits were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

For the record,  I don't believe there was significant enough fraud to change the outcome of the election, so don't take this reply to somehow be evidence that I'm an election denier,  I'm simply addressing a claim that the courts all looked at the available evidence and ruled the evidence insufficient for trial,  because that's not what happened at all,  for the most part!

Here you go...

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

Quote

On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. ( here ). At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

 

[+and-then]

21 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Did this prevent anyone from voting?

Undoubtedly it did in some cases.  In others they were told to drop the votes into a box and they be counted separately.  Huge numbers of those were placed in these boxes but only 17000 were acknowledged.  Even then, some of those were dumped in with ballots that had already been counted and there was no way to count the ones that had NOT yet be tallied.

As for proof, no one here who supports the results is the slightest bit interested in facts that might tend to disprove what they believe.  The proof of this is that unless a media source THEY TRUST covers this story, they simply mock the source and ignore it, smugly, usually.  Quite a game, innit?

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Demonstrating you have no idea about "standing" again.

Why not tell me how I'm wrong,  Duck. Until then,  the cars dismissed on Standing had their evidence ignored!

[Grim Reaper 6]

13 minutes ago, and-then said:

Undoubtedly it did in some cases.  In others they were told to drop the votes into a box and they be counted separately.  Huge numbers of those were placed in these boxes but only 17000 were acknowledged.  Even then, some of those were dumped in with ballots that had already been counted and there was no way to count the ones that had NOT yet be tallied.

As for proof, no one here who supports the results is the slightest bit interested in facts that might tend to disprove what they believe.  The proof of this is that unless a media source THEY TRUST covers this story, they simply mock the source and ignore it, smugly, usually.  Quite a game, innit?

Still please provide a source.

[+Paranoid Android]

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

You are going to need to provide a link to back that up.  Rudy and the Kraken presented evidence to multiple courts.  

It's a fact that the majority of cases were dismissed on Standing! 

 

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Here you go...

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

 

The article is challenging the claim that "not a single court" heard evidence.  I'm not claiming that! I'm claiming he majority of them were dismissed on Standing! Which is true!

[Golden Duck]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Why not tell me how I'm wrong,  Duck. Until then,  the cars dismissed on Standing had their evidence ignored!

In extreme laconic term - no standing means there's no damage to remedy.

In this case Lake, is claiming harm and seeking an appropriate remedy.  That is the obvious difference between this and the Krakenoid cases.

[+Paranoid Android]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

In extreme laconic term - no standing means there's no damage to remedy.

In this case Lake, is claiming harm and seeking an appropriate remedy.  That is the obvious difference between this and the Krakenoid cases.

How does that counter my comments about the 2020 election cases being largely dismissed on Standing, and therefore the courts did not look at the evidence???

Edited December 11, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[spartan max2]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

How does that counter my comments about the 2020 election cases being largely dismissed on Standing???

If a lawsuit has no standing than it mean the party cannot show harm was done.

The fact most of the election fraud cases didn't even have standing shows how frivolous they were. 

Election deniers grasping onto lack of standing just further shows they don't know what they are talking about.

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Here you go...

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1

 

There are countless statements from judges during 2020 about how absolutely moronic all the election fraud lawsuits were.

All these statements of course are ignored by the people who want to believe that the election was stolen from them.

[+Paranoid Android]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If a lawsuit has no standing than it mean the party cannot show harm was done.

The fact most of the election fraud cases didn't even have standing shows how frivolous they were. 

Election deniers grasping onto lack of standing just further shows they don't know what they are talking about.

That's an unwarranted conclusion based on what happened! It's one possibility,  but by no means the only one. 

Nevertheless,  it still means that the courts literally didn't look at the evidence!!!!

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's an unwarranted conclusion based on what happened! It's one possibility,  but by no means the only one. 

Nevertheless,  it still means that the courts literally didn't look at the evidence!!!!

 

It literally means that the party did not have any evidence to look at. 

If you followed closing during 2020 than this would be no surprise to you as the majority of lawsuits won't even trying to prove fraud (despite how Trumpers tries to frame it to their followers) but were trying to throw batches of votes out over technicalities. 

[+Paranoid Android]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

It literally means that the party did not have any evidence to look at. 

That is NOT how it works!

 

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

If you followed closing during 2020 than this would be no surprise to you as the majority of lawsuits won't even trying to prove fraud (despite how Trumpers tries to frame it to their followers) but were trying to throw batches of votes out over technicalities. 

I was following cost than most during that time,  risk thank you.  

[spartan max2]

Just to throw out there.

 

Quote

Of 64 cases, the group found:

20 were dismissed before hearings on the merits, 

14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his allies before hearings on the merits,

And 30 cases included hearings on the merits. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/

Edited December 12, 2022 by spartan max2

[Golden Duck]

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

How does that counter my comments about the 2020 election cases being largely dismissed on Standing, and therefore the courts did not look at the evidence???

It shows you comments are a straw man.

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That is NOT how it works!

 

I was following cost than most during that time,  risk thank you.  

The legal term of standing comes down to harm. In some cases like with the Texas lawsuit. It didn't have standing because the party (state of Texas) can't bring a lawsuit claiming damages on behalf of another party (Georgia). The harmed party would have to do that. 

So if an election denier wanted to bury their head in the sand and look at no other court cases or use critical thinking than you could act like that case wasent looked into.

 

Georgia of course brought their own lawsuits which all lost.

Edited December 12, 2022 by spartan max2