Jack Clifford: Lake v. Hobbs, the ruling

Powerline ^ | 12/26/2022 | Jack Clifford

[Fury]

"After laying out the “clear and convincing” burden of proof Lake needed to carry, the court summarized and evaluated the witnesses and evidence Lake presented. The court looked to Arizona case law going back to 1898, before we became a state in 1912, for the proposition “it is . . . unwise to lay down any rule by which the certainty and accuracy of an election may be jeopardized by the reliance upon any proof affecting such results that is not of the most clear and conclusive character.” (See opinion for the citations.)"

and:

"What difference does it make? Lots of difference. Here’s how. Much of Lake’s case was hearsay. Ms. Honey relied on what another person said in an affidavit about ballots being added to the stream of ballots by Runbeck employees without a chain of custody for them and in violation of law. She did not see this happen with her own eyes. Defense counsel was unable to cross examine the person who allegedly saw the deed take place."

[DiogenesLamp]

“The f*cked up ballots” were transcribed onto proper ballots and were scanned and counted.

Any presumption of integrity on the part of election officials evaporated when they pulled the resizing scam.

You can believe them if you are naive. So far as i'm concerned, nothing they say can be accepted as true.

Even if you accept their word on the matter, this does not address the people who left the line to vote and went home without voting because of the enormous time delays caused by the resizing scam.

[DiogenesLamp]

She doesn’t have a legal case.

So far as I am concerned, the resized ballot scam calls for an automatic do over. Whether the corrupt/stupid legal system agrees I cannot say, because they do idiot things for idiot reasons all the d@mn time, but rational people can see this election is corrupted sufficiently to disenfranchise voters, and therefore it should be done over again.

In a sane world.

And for some reason, you don't see the resized ballot scam as sufficient reason to question the validity of the process.

I do.

[Oystir]

I was talking about her claims and judge threw them out. But I was also wrong. The judge did NOT sanction her. Good news.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have no opinion on the 42% of the ballots checked being resized so that they would not work in the machines?

[Oystir]

The judge didn’t. Or as least the law, as written, didn’t. But I will say that I have been a poll worker in a different state and it wouldn’t have happened in my county.