- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge calls election lawsuit ‘baseless,’ orders Kari Lake, Mark Finchem to pay court fees
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:45 am to loogaroo
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:45 am to loogaroo
quote:
But Tuchi said the big problem with the arguments of why machine counts are unreliable is they are based on a lot of "what if" speculations.
"A long chain of hypothetical contingencies must take place for any harm to occur," he wrote. That includes:
The specific voting equipment used in Arizona must have security failures that allow a malicious actor to manipulate vote totals;
Such an actor must actually manipulate an election;
Arizona's specific procedural safeguards must fail to detect the manipulation; and
The manipulation must change the outcome of the election.
"Plaintiffs fail to plausibly show that Arizona's voting equipment even has such security failures," the judge said. "And even if the allegations in plaintiff's complaint were plausible, their alleged injury is not certainly impending."
Basically they want this because hypothetically they could have been cheated but have no evidence suggesting such basically...
4
Posted on 12/2/22 at 9:49 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Basically they want this because hypothetically they could have been cheated but have no evidence suggesting such basically...
To recap:
1. No one can hold certification of election results until an investigation is held, even the people charged with certifying election results.
2. No one can challenge election results to get an investigation started, including the people who were harmed by what is very likely fraud.
3. No one can sue to hold election results until investigations are performed.
But let's not let any of that stop the morons who spout off about "free and fair elections."
Posted on 12/2/22 at 10:10 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Basically they want this because hypothetically they could have been cheated but have no evidence suggesting such basically...
I disagree, and it certainly had enough merit to get past this point. However ,you bring up a good point. Is the standard you shared the standard being used against Trump?
Posted on 12/2/22 at 10:15 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Basically they want this because hypothetically they could have been cheated but have no evidence suggesting such basically...
Then rules Maircopa county doesn’t have to hand over evidence.
So basically if there is fraud, which you are admitting can actually happen, you can’t do anything about it.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 1:56 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
undermine public trust at a time of increasing disinformation about, and distrust in, the democratic process
quote:You mean, besides the fact that Arizonans supposedly just elected a woman so insecure in her own capacity that she even refused to debate her opponent once? You mean besides the fact their were a litany of documented irregularities in Maricopa? You mean besides the fact it took more than a week, not to declare a winner, but to simply count votes?
they want this because hypothetically they could have been cheated but have no evidence suggesting such basically.
A teacher is called out of a classroom during an exam by administration. In later grading the papers she finds 20 have identical answers. When she raises questions of cheating, and plans to ask classmates if they witnessed anything, school officials step in. They ask if she has proof aside from the coincidental similarity of the answers. She says that's why she wants to ask others who were present what they witnessed. School officials say, without more substantive proof, she is forbidden to pursue the issue further.
You DO NOT EVER instill confidence in a process by refusing to examine possible flaws or malfeasance. Not once EVER is confidence in an honest, fair result rendered that way. The judge is either corrupt, or a mental invalid.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News