Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Lake v Hobbs - Arizona Governor Race turns to Court (Stolen Election Electric Boogaloo 2)
So I'm sure I'm giving a 'biased' outlook but Day 1 Trial was yesterday and man some bombshells were dropped. Judge previously ruled 2 of the 10 Claims could go to trial and there would be 2 days of testimony.
General Gist: Judge heard from expert testimony that the defense (Hobbs) was unable to get removed from testifying showing there were issues with Chain of Custody and Tabulation along with Ballot making. They were all coherent and spoke softly on major problems they saw and essentially made Maricopa county look ridiculous/incapable.
That's what I'm seeing as well. I'm not sure because we haven't seen so many follow ups to 'they stole the election' in a legal sense. It's always been trial by media with the media being owned by globalist interest.
Kari Lake is a problem for the establishment because she's a known public face in Arizona alongside having intelligence/grace for public appearances. She doesn't need the establishment to coach her which is what makes what she's doing fascinating.
Redoing the election is one option, there is (IIRC) also precedent in AZ Gubernatorial races for just giving the election to the wronged party if there is enough evidence.
Redoing the election is one option, there is (IIRC) also precedent in AZ Gubernatorial races for just giving the election to the wronged party if there is enough evidence.
‘I mean yes we did all that and it obviously favored us but can you prove we meant to do it with intent to harm you? Even though us unfairly willing would be harm.’
- The Defence
Assuming it’s favorable to Lake, the judge could:
Declare that Lake won the election
Defer the election outcome to the state legislature (it’s Republican isn’t it? So Lake should win)
Redo the election entirely
Restrict or require certain election procedures in the future
Judge will do nothing. People in positions of power, like judges, hate rocking the boat. Everything must stay as it currently is.
God knows I wish it were different.
Assuming it’s favorable to Lake, the judge could:
Declare that Lake won the election
Defer the election outcome to the state legislature (it’s Republican isn’t it? So Lake should win)
Redo the election entirely
Restrict or require certain election procedures in the future
Assuming it’s favorable to Lake, the judge could:
Declare that Lake won the election
Defer the election outcome to the state legislature (it’s Republican isn’t it? So Lake should win)
Redo the election entirely
Restrict or require certain election procedures in the future
If you expect anything other than 4 you're a fool. 3 is such a long shot that you would have better luck winning the powerball. 1 and 2 are totally out of the question. Kari Lake has to prove intent which is almost impossible with police powers that can do things like wiretap, its entirely impossible for a civilian to pull this off.
If you expect anything other than 4 you're a fool. 3 is such a long shot that you would have better luck winning the powerball. 1 and 2 are totally out of the question. Kari Lake has to prove intent which is almost impossible with police powers that can do things like wiretap, its entirely impossible for a civilian to pull this off.
The dems will never EVER allow the possibility that the election being clearly stolen could be televised. Even a small election (compared to 2020 that is) being proven to be fraudulent would ruin the US's reputation officially. The DNC has beaten the term "Completely true and honest elections" to death and seeing the right proven correct would open pandora's box.
I predict the judge will be threatened persuaded to drop the case, even if damning evidence is found. Lake being allowed to win was never an option.
The dems will never EVER allow the possibility that the election being clearly stolen could be televised. Even a small election (compared to 2020 that is) being proven to be fraudulent would ruin the US's reputation officially.
That was the suit in Texas v. Pennsylvania et al, but there's no way around the courts just waving a wand and banishing the case via the magic word "standing."
