re: Kari Lake Election Contest TRIAL! Viva & Barnes Live Commentary

quote:

---

Rich Baris is killing it

---

I think it's a difficult hurdle to clear. A question - assume long lines weren't nearly the issue many believe, if people were discouraged to go to a voting center because they were gaslighted about long lines, is that disenfranchisement?

I can't have Lucy pull that mfing football back on me again.

You are not Christian yet invoke Christianity.

Go sit under a peeing Buddha fountain. Freak.

quote:

---

Of course, but there is evidence of long lines. I wouldn't call live video gaslighting.

---

It's gaslighting if the long line is anomalous and the perception is created that it's common.

The attorney yesterday afternoon testified to "lines as long as 150 people" and wait times well over an hour. But he didn't time anything. He's assuming 150 people in line means a wait well over an hour. But we know from earlier testimony that the rate limiting step in casting a vote (filling the ballot out by hand) took 8 to 10 minutes. So 150 people in line x 10 minutes divided by the number of those little tables where you fill your ballot out with would determine how long a wait time 150 people in line would mean. The voting center I voted at was not that big - just a guess, but less than a thousand square feet total - and we had to have had 30+ of those tables. So a line of 150 people at the voting center I went to would have equaled a max 50 minute wait. Maybe I'm wrong about how big my voting center was, and maybe the Board of Supervisors is stupid enough to have voting centers with only 10 tables, but I haven't heard/read anything like that.

It's why I asked the question about how long a wait has to be and for how long does it need to persist, for there to be disenfranchisement.

The best day of any lawyer's case is the first day of it. That's the last day it is impossible to lose.

quote:

---

is that disenfranchisement?

---

I think it's disenfranchisement if they deliberately fricked with the ballots or machines (which supernerd hillbilly definitively showed yesterday) in order to cause the chaos and the lines and depress Lake's Election Day Voters.

My question is - do any of you know whether Arizona has anything to rebut Baris's numbers? Because if they don't the ONLY evidence in the case shows that 50,000 Lake voters did not vote because of the disenfrancisement.

If Baris is unrebutted and the world is fair then Lake wins. Further, if the Judge accepts Baris as an expert and then ignores his testimony in favor of no evidence presented by the Defendant, I think that's manifest error and this would not be over after the trial. Meaning, Lake would have a good argument on appeal.

If Lake wins - and AZ presented no rebuttal evidence - the judge is secure on appeal, and there is a new election. And the decision should be affirmed.

This is what should happen.

quote:

---

I told you Baws that presenting hard numbers is key. I'm so pissed i missed direct exam. I'm sure he explained how he got his #s.

---

You're correct, presenting real numbers is by far the key. However, based on the way this election process was corrupted, getting to the numbers is very difficult and it looks to be intentional. It appears Maricopa county planned a way to prevent post election investigation and analysis.

quote:

---

but to be disenfranchisement it has to be shown it had some requisite level impact.

---

The current witness testifying is showing the requisite impact.

In other disparate impact cases - witnesses like Baris do the analysis.

If they don't have anything to rebut him - AZ has lost this case. Or would in any other disparate impact context.

quote:

---

can you imagine waiting in line at your voting precinct to find the system is FUBARed and then getting told to go to another precinct where you find another FUBARed system?

---

Particularly when you showed up precisely because you were worried about the FUBAR system and didn't trust the drop box to count your vote.