LIVE THREAD - Arizona Election Trial: LAKE V. HOBBS Day 1 – 12/21/2022

RSBN ^ | 12/21/2022 | RSBN Studio

[kvanbrunt2]

day 2. January 29th. dismissed. no evidence of fraud. mis feasance and maybe malfeasance.

[MayflowerMadam]

The cable they used yesterday when the equipment functioned perfectly is ... MISSING TODAY.

[Golden Eagle]

So the rats not only sabotaged the voting machines, they’ve been sabotaging equipment in the courtroom! These people are evil to the core, and apparently feel no threat or danger in doing their dirty deeds.

[Robert DeLong]

He has long hair, but I don't see it as dirty or scraggly.

Since I just joined in, I can't speak to his lawyer abilities.

[Hostage]

Granting a jury trial rests on balance of equitable vs. legal claims with predominately legal claims going to jury.

Hobbs camp will argue "equitable not illegal" defenses.

They will raise machines no worky because stuff happens.

They will argue signature mismatches are small in number, not enough to change outcome, or AI software did stuff so someone else is to blame blah blah blah .....

Study this from AZ State Senator Wendy Rogers:

There is precedent for AZ Courts reversing a sworn in governor after fraud was confirmed.

The 1916 AZ governor race was contested, and the "declared winner" was overturned by a court, 12 months later, and ordered to repay state for 12 months salary:

[MayflowerMadam]

Yup. In-your-face sabotage.

Why didn’t Kari’s attorney follow up when Richer said he did not have anything to do with a anti-Kari PAC? He just let it go.

[MayflowerMadam]

His abilities seem to be so-so. To be fair, I guess Kari had trouble finding attorneys who weren’t afraid to take her case.

[Golden Eagle]

Looks like there may be a different lawyer for Lake questioning this witness.

[MayflowerMadam]

Yeah. The new attorney is concentrating on a different criminal.

[Golden Eagle]

Why didn’t Kari’s attorney follow up when Richer said he did not have anything to do with a anti-Kari PAC?

I think he got the "100%" denial quote he wanted, which they probably plan on proving false later, to discredit the witness.

[Parley Baer]

Just a thought, but maybe she had trouble getting an attorney. You know the Democrats will go after anyone representing her.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I think he got the ‘100%’ denial quote he wanted, which they probably plan on proving false later, to discredit the witness.”

I was thinking that, too. But I expected the lawyer to IMMEDIATELY show the evidence to discredit the witness. (Like on TV, y’know - LOL!) I don’t know when the opportunity will arise later.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Just a thought, but maybe she had trouble getting an attorney.”

She absolutely did. She said that interested attorneys were threatened to be sanctioned, and probably worse.

[MayflowerMadam]

This guy doesn’t recall ballots being rejected. OMG!

[Robert DeLong]

Well, Kari Lake does have more than 1 lawyer that I see sitting at the table.

[MayflowerMadam]

Yes. At least two.

[MayflowerMadam]

She said that one lawyer is/was a Navy Seal, IIRC.

[ryderann]

Every time the witness said “No, I’m not aware...” he then jerked to the side.

[Golden Eagle]

I was thinking that, too. But I expected the lawyer to IMMEDIATELY show the evidence to discredit the witness. (Like on TV, y’know - LOL!) I don’t know when the opportunity will arise later.

I definitely would have preferred that, myself. I can only guess he wants to have someone else present the evidence to lend it more credibility. What would be great is if he can get multiple things on the record that contradict that guy, then call him back later, and destroy him completely. We can hope, I guess!

[TakebackGOP]

Will this be decided by a jury or the judge?