CONFESSION IN KARI LAKE TRIAL? CASE CLOSED? TRIAL UPDATE!
Comments
-
-
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on… -
Ah, testimony matters now. Got it.Sledog said:
“Heard it from a friend who…heard it from a friend who…” -
I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
-
It's no surprise that you believe the Court was ruling on who won or lost. JFC.HHusky said:I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
How's that University of Guam Law Degree working out for ya? -
“We wuz robbed!” was the theory of the case.TurdBomber said:
It's no surprise that you believe the Court was ruling on who won or lost. JFC.HHusky said:I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
How's that University of Guam Law Degree working out for ya?
It actually breaks up into four elements which have to be proven under Arizona law. One of those is that the outcome was clearly changed. Kari’s absolute BEST witness can be taken at his word and that element was not proven. You girls could learn a lot simply by reading the decision you’re all whining about.
Republican appointed judge was in on it? -
We'll never know, will we? And you're fine with that when it benefits your pinko-commie side.HHusky said:
“We wuz robbed!” was the theory of the case.TurdBomber said:
It's no surprise that you believe the Court was ruling on who won or lost. JFC.HHusky said:I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
How's that University of Guam Law Degree working out for ya?
It actually breaks up into four elements which have to be proven under Arizona law. One of those is that the outcome was clearly changed. Kari’s absolute BEST witness can be taken at his word and that element was not proven. You girls could learn a lot simply by reading the decision you’re all whining about.
Republican appointed judge was in on it?
81 Million. Mmm-Hmm. -
Said the dumb shit who doesn’t think 81 million Americans would happily vote against Daddy.TurdBomber said:
We'll never know, will we? And you're fine with that when it benefits your pinko-commie side.HHusky said:
“We wuz robbed!” was the theory of the case.TurdBomber said:
It's no surprise that you believe the Court was ruling on who won or lost. JFC.HHusky said:I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
How's that University of Guam Law Degree working out for ya?
It actually breaks up into four elements which have to be proven under Arizona law. One of those is that the outcome was clearly changed. Kari’s absolute BEST witness can be taken at his word and that element was not proven. You girls could learn a lot simply by reading the decision you’re all whining about.
Republican appointed judge was in on it?
81 Million. Mmm-Hmm. -
Says the dumb shit who believes 81 million did vote for Biden.HHusky said:
Said the dumb shit who doesn’t think 81 million Americans would happily vote against Daddy.TurdBomber said:
We'll never know, will we? And you're fine with that when it benefits your pinko-commie side.HHusky said:
“We wuz robbed!” was the theory of the case.TurdBomber said:
It's no surprise that you believe the Court was ruling on who won or lost. JFC.HHusky said:I’ve read the decision, Mall Cop. Even the witness who was most generous to Kari’s position didn’t testify that she was the winner.
How's that University of Guam Law Degree working out for ya?
It actually breaks up into four elements which have to be proven under Arizona law. One of those is that the outcome was clearly changed. Kari’s absolute BEST witness can be taken at his word and that element was not proven. You girls could learn a lot simply by reading the decision you’re all whining about.
Republican appointed judge was in on it?
81 Million. Mmm-Hmm. -
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
-
“There is no doubt that each side believes firmly in its position with great conviction,” Thompson ruled on Tuesday. “The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required… does not equate to a finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith.
Can you read @HHusky?
What a fucking retard. -
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on… -
More retardation. Jesus.Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
If the process is corrupted, the vote count is invalid, period.
Grow a brain, Duck. -
This rebuts anything I ever said how exactly? (And that's not to say that the court of appeals will agree, if asked.) Use your words.TurdBomber said:“There is no doubt that each side believes firmly in its position with great conviction,” Thompson ruled on Tuesday. “The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required… does not equate to a finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith.
Can you read @HHusky?
What a fucking retard. -
Madam, the court laid out the burden of proof very clearly and explained how it had not been met. If you want to quarrel with the decision, you'd actually have to read it.TurdBomber said:
More retardation. Jesus.Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
If the process is corrupted, the vote count is invalid, period.
Grow a brain, Duck.
It's about ten pages. With effort you might be able to plow through it in a couple weeks. -
Fuck Off, Gnat. I would expect a competent attorney to understand the burden of proof required and what the actual issues before the court are.HHusky said:
This rebuts anything I ever said how exactly? (And that's not to say that the court of appeals will agree, if asked.) Use your words.TurdBomber said:“There is no doubt that each side believes firmly in its position with great conviction,” Thompson ruled on Tuesday. “The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required… does not equate to a finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith.
Can you read @HHusky?
What a fucking retard.
But then there's you. -
Election deniers now define "winning" as not being sanctioned after trial?TurdBomber said:
Fuck Off, Gnat. I would expect a competent attorney to understand the burden of proof required and what the actual issues before the court are.HHusky said:
This rebuts anything I ever said how exactly? (And that's not to say that the court of appeals will agree, if asked.) Use your words.TurdBomber said:“There is no doubt that each side believes firmly in its position with great conviction,” Thompson ruled on Tuesday. “The fact that Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of clear and convincing evidence required… does not equate to a finding that her claims were, or were not, groundless and presented in bad faith.
Can you read @HHusky?
What a fucking retard.
But then there's you.
congrats, I guess
#moralvictory -
The proof was the altered ballot printing and machine malfunctions only in repub heavy precincts. Easy fucking peasy.
-
Bumfuck, ID in the house!Sledog said:The proof was the altered ballot printing and machine malfunctions only in repub heavy precincts. Easy fucking peasy.
-
Where do you think Judge Thompson's BOP language I posted came from? The bathroom stall where you service the Glory Hole?HHusky said:
Madam, the court laid out the burden of proof very clearly and explained how it had not been met. If you want to quarrel with the decision, you'd actually have to read it.TurdBomber said:
More retardation. Jesus.Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
If the process is corrupted, the vote count is invalid, period.
Grow a brain, Duck.
It's about ten pages. With effort you might be able to plow through it in a couple weeks.
Such Retard, H. -
You just poasted a denial of a motion for sanctions and are taking a victory lap?TurdBomber said:
Where do you think Judge Thompson's BOP language I posted came from? The bathroom stall where you service the Glory Hole?HHusky said:
Madam, the court laid out the burden of proof very clearly and explained how it had not been met. If you want to quarrel with the decision, you'd actually have to read it.TurdBomber said:
More retardation. Jesus.Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
If the process is corrupted, the vote count is invalid, period.
Grow a brain, Duck.
It's about ten pages. With effort you might be able to plow through it in a couple weeks.
Such Retard, H.
You might be embarrassing the other morons now, even Mall Cop. -
The court testimony was up to 40,000 from the lines alone, which is way more than enough to flip the elections. And that ignores all the other shenanigans…Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
-
You very nearly stumble over the point here.HoustonHusky said:
The court testimony was up to 40,000 from the lines alone, which is way more than enough to flip the elections. And that ignores all the other shenanigans…Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
Yes, Kari's witness said his estimated range could be enough to change the result. But his estimate also included a range that would not have done so. So, you could accept his testimony at face value and it still wouldn't carry the day.
Inadequate proof as a matter of law. Proving you may have won doesn't feed the bulldog in an election challenge.
-
Law enforcement icon hates the law.
-
His testimony. Keep lying you speed limit IQ fraud.HHusky said:
You very nearly stumble over the point here.HoustonHusky said:
The court testimony was up to 40,000 from the lines alone, which is way more than enough to flip the elections. And that ignores all the other shenanigans…Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
Yes, Kari's witness said his estimated range could be enough to change the result. But his estimate also included a range that would not have done so. So, you could accept his testimony at face value and it still wouldn't carry the day.
Inadequate proof as a matter of law. Proving you may have won doesn't feed the bulldog in an election challenge.
“In my professional opinion, the amount of Election Day voters that we’re talking about here, with the margin, would have changed the outcome of the race, and the number is substantial enough to have changed who the overall winner was in this race,” Baris said.
-
His opinion on the likelihood of the outcome changing cannot overcome the fact that his estimate included a range that both would and would not have changed the outcome. Clear and convincing, not more likely than not is the standard. So Kari didn’t even present a prima facie case. Don’t quit your day job.HoustonHusky said:
His testimony. Keep lying you speed limit IQ fraud.HHusky said:
You very nearly stumble over the point here.HoustonHusky said:
The court testimony was up to 40,000 from the lines alone, which is way more than enough to flip the elections. And that ignores all the other shenanigans…Goduckies said:
What were the numbers? How nany didn't vote?HoustonHusky said:
Yes…way more than enough. The estimate is that the hour+ lines in the targeted Republican areas suppressed voting 10-17% while magically the ballot errors didn’t even happen in the more Democratic areas of the County. Several “safe” Representative districts (AZ1 esp) almost flipped because the Election Day vote was suppressed so much.Goduckies said:
Were there enough votes to change the outcome? If so what were the totals?HoustonHusky said:The evidence was proven…even the cat lady’s lawyer was left stuttering several times. The judge even agreed that it happened…the threshold for this (and other) hacks has now become if you don’t have the person who actually did it on the stand confessing that they did it specifically to cheat then you don’t have the “intent” proof of why it happened so you can’t do anything. Which is absolutely insane for criminal matters, much less civic matters. Esp since the defendant was in charge of the election. How many people would be found guilty of rape or murder with this idiotic threshold? But it’s an easy goal post to move, esp on Christmas Eve when everyone is distracted.
We live in a #BananaRepublic…for all those who are trying to rationalize their way around it realize you’ve got a speed-limit IQ HondoFS urging you on…
Yes, Kari's witness said his estimated range could be enough to change the result. But his estimate also included a range that would not have done so. So, you could accept his testimony at face value and it still wouldn't carry the day.
Inadequate proof as a matter of law. Proving you may have won doesn't feed the bulldog in an election challenge.
“In my professional opinion, the amount of Election Day voters that we’re talking about here, with the margin, would have changed the outcome of the race, and the number is substantial enough to have changed who the overall winner was in this race,” Baris said. -
Sounds like you are changing your story because you blatantly lied about what Baris testified to originally. Shocker.
-
I’m clearly not changing my story. He testified that Kari lost a range of votes. Some portions of the range would have her winning and some portions would not. So, again, even taking his testimony at face value, he testified that Kari may have won. That’s true even if he thinks she probably won. That’s not a prima facie case even if we fully accept her evidence as correct.HoustonHusky said:Sounds like you are changing your story because you blatantly lied about what Baris testified to originally. Shocker.
-
HHusky: Kari's witness said his estimated range could be enough to change the result.
Kari’s witness: “In my professional opinion, the amount of Election Day voters that we’re talking about here, with the margin, would have changed the outcome of the race, and the number is substantial enough to have changed who the overall winner was in this race,”
HHusky: yeah but…
Keep lying speed-limit IQ boy… -
Yet his estimate is recited in the Court’s opinion. The one you girls refuse to read. The range he arrived at allows for either outcome. His beliefs about which outcome is more likely is, bluntly, irrelevant. An election is presumed proper and correctly determined until clearly and convincingly proven otherwise.HoustonHusky said:HHusky: Kari's witness said his estimated range could be enough to change the result.
Kari’s witness: “In my professional opinion, the amount of Election Day voters that we’re talking about here, with the margin, would have changed the outcome of the race, and the number is substantial enough to have changed who the overall winner was in this race,”
HHusky: yeah but…
Keep lying speed-limit IQ boy…
