re: Breaking: Kari Lake loses trial to overturn Arizona Governor election - Vows to appeal

Ok Cuckadoodledoo

quote:

---

The Court credits the personal observations of Mr. Sonnenklar and does not doubt his knowledge or his veracity. But the Court cannot follow Mr. Sonneklar to ascribing intentional misconduct to any party. Mr. Sonnenklar said at Trial that it was “common sense” that such widespread failures must have been the result of intentional conduct. But this intuition does not square with Mr. Sonnenklar’s own observations. For one thing, County T-Techs being sent to troubleshoot and fix the issues with tabulators are not consistent with a scheme by a person or persons to alter the result of an election.

---

Mickey, a statement like this is indicative of a Judge in the tank with a preconceived verdict. In other words, he either sees cheating and is searching for ways to dismiss it, or he'd so blinded by preconception that he sees nothing at all..

In fact, "County T-Techs being sent to troubleshoot and fix the issues with tabulators are not consistent with a scheme by a person" are ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with a person intentionally altering the result. Contending otherwise, is stupid ... at best.

The court's finding is as nonsensical as insisting SBF never committed investment fraud because Alameda/FTX employees, unaware of the fraud, tried to locate investor's embezzled funds and fix the problem. Unless the judge insists that every county tech and/or their directors would HAVE to be in on the steal, the County T-Tech response would be entirely irrelevant.

Contention to the contrary indicates the judge is either a mouth-forming imbecile, or corrupt, or his mind was so thoroughly made up beforehand, that a counterthesis did not even occur.

quote:

---

It’s an interesting argument that chain of custody documents simply need to exist and don’t need to actually support the totals and tallies reported in the election. That gives a pretty good insight into your level of understanding if chain of custody.

---

Plaintiff's made the argument that they didn't exist. They did not make any argument in their complaint that they weren't accurate.

From the Judge's decision:

quote:

---

Because Plaintiff’s expert agreed that the forms which are the basis for this claim were generated, Plaintiff cannot point to their absence writ large as a violation of the EPM.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiff claims they don't exist. Expert for Plaintiff says they do. Defendants say they do.

---

Plaintiffs concede they exist. By law they’re required to exist. Plaintiffs argued that they were not produced bc they don’t reconcile and/or they were otherwise incriminating to the defendants.

Defendants could have eliminated this inference by producing the documents. They did not. If it’s not an outright admission they show that chain of custody isn’t verified for a significant number of ballots, it’s a damning inference just the same.

That was the whole point of the voicemail from
Betty.

quote:

---

Ummmmmm. You serious?

---

Yes, the judge clearly states that the presumption is the county did things correctly per state law. He also states the county doesn’t have to prove its work because of that. The burden is to prove they did not follow their chain of custody procedures. Lake did not prove it.

So, is Ms. Lake going to appeal after her sanctions?

quote:

---

Plaintiffs concede they exist. By law they’re required to exist. Plaintiffs argued that they were not produced bc they don’t reconcile and/or they were otherwise incriminating to the defendants. Defendants could have eliminated this inference by producing the documents. They did not. If it’s not an outright admission they show that chain of custody isn’t verified for a significant number of ballots, it’s a damning inference just the same.

---

The judge specifically said under state law the county is presumed to have ran their election properly. He said it is not their job to come in and prove their work as it were. There is no negative inference to be gained by the county not introducing those documents as they are not required to do so. You are holding something against them that they have no requirement to do. It’s like holding a defendant’s refusal to testify against himself. He’s not required to do so and no negative inference can be made.

quote:

---

I'm not following you here. There was an issue with printers. Techs were sent out to fix those issues. The judge is saying the mere fact that techs were sent out to fix issues (and thereby improve the election day process/flow) discredits the theory of intent to disrupt the election.

---

That's a pretty big leap of logic given it was the techs that changed the settings that forced the ballots to print in the wrong format.

quote:

---

That's a pretty big leap of logic given it was the techs that changed the settings that forced the ballots to print in the wrong format.

---

The techs were sent to deal with the printers that were printing too light. They were addressing that issue with the printer. That’s when a couple of the printers were inadvertently set to print to fit.