Kar-I-Less Flake -- 'Toss out the election and appoint me.'

[jaF0]

Birdbrain made such a big deal about how solid and factual this case was and here it is, tossed out like so much chicken scratch.

 

[KeithD]

It’s a Harpy Christmas MELTDOWN.

JFC

This is part of the accountability phase. Enjoying Trump and his apologists melt down from their corruption, criminality, and treason catching up with them.

 

[jaF0]

Merry X-Mas KareBear ....

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-567af73f%2Fturbine%2Fhc-op-thorson-coal-in-stocking-1224-20151223&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2f61ea1a4c54245a11fd580543dab12f84d75262825dbf024a3cbecac963bff0&ipo=images

 

[jaF0]

Kari Lake Officially Loses Arizona Gov. Election, Again - DNyuz​

https://dnyuz.com › 2022 › 12 › 24 › kari-lake-officially-loses-arizona-gov-election-again
Today Kari Lake's Christmas weekend is off to a sour start as a judge rejected her election challenge Saturday, formally declaring her the loser of the Arizona gubernatorial race.. The far-right Republican refused to concede the race after losing by more than 17,000 votes to Democrat Katie Hobbs. Instead, she spread conspiracies that the election was rigged, pointing her ire at Maricopa County ...




Donny lost ... what .. 50-60 times?

Wonder if she'll try to tie.

 

[jaF0]

"Opinion: This being Christmas, it would seem a good time for Kari Lake to offer the state of Arizona a gift. Lake should accept the verdict of the judge, muster some grace and concede the governor's race."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...-for-her-to-offer-arizona-a-gift/69755549007/

"Naturally, Lake reacted to the loss with her trademark refusal to accept reality.

“My Election Case provided the world with evidence that proves our elections are run outside of the law,” she tweeted. “This Judge did not rule in our favor. However, for the sake of restoring faith and honesty in our elections, I will appeal his ruling.”"


----------------------------

No surprise she finds herself appealing.

 

[dkovic77]

Oh my, the "look it's all being done by the Republicans" denial.


WHO was in charge at the time is irrelevant to the illegality of the acts.

But then you know that and are instead only throwing shit around in order to get attention. Good for you.

And again, the directives were given. Republicans had a chance to challenge after the primary and didn’t.

Now that the decision is in, we don’t retro anything we look forward.

But of course you should know that. You do right?

Btw, how did the Arizona thing work out?

Long lines for republicans made some turn away from the polls? Well that was just an unforeseen circumstance as opposed to the intentional decisions that led to lines for routinely democratic voters.

If you want same day voting only, open up a precinct in every school. That will give enough to cover everyone who wants to vote. And make Election Day a national holiday, so more have the opportunity to vote instead of having to make a choice for work.

Or allow early voting… and save some cash.

Either way, thanks for playing. Wrong in Wisconsin and Arizona. Next attempt?

 

[HisArpy]

Birdbrain made such a big deal about how solid and factual this case was and here it is, tossed out like so much chicken scratch.

Actually, I said there was evidence. That the judge didn't believe the evidence was sufficient to rule in Lake's favor is no way refutes that there was actual evidence.

Thus, like so much of what you post, you're just wrong again.

 

[HisArpy]

And again, the directives were given. Republicans had a chance to challenge after the primary and didn’t.

Now that the decision is in, we don’t retro anything we look forward.

But of course you should know that. You do right?

Btw, how did the Arizona thing work out?

Long lines for republicans made some turn away from the polls? Well that was just an unforeseen circumstance as opposed to the intentional decisions that led to lines for routinely democratic voters.

If you want same day voting only, open up a precinct in every school. That will give enough to cover everyone who wants to vote. And make Election Day a national holiday, so more have the opportunity to vote instead of having to make a choice for work.

Or allow early voting… and save some cash.

Either way, thanks for playing. Wrong in Wisconsin and Arizona. Next attempt?

That you believe that it's ok to break the rules because it benefits you and your cause doesn't mean that it really is ok.

BTW, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled that the drop boxes were ILLEGAL. That makes it a win for my argument and a loss for you. Thanks for playing.

 

[DeluxAuto]

That makes it a win for my argument and a loss for you. Thanks for playing.

Your clients are upset that you can barely win a legal argument against someone who doesn't practice the law. When was that Wisconsin ruling, Derpy?

 

[HisArpy]

Your clients are upset that you can barely win a legal argument against someone who doesn't practice the law. When was that Wisconsin ruling, Derpy?

It's not my fault you're a loser.

 

[DeluxAuto]

When was that Wisconsin ruling, Derpy?

It's not my fault you're a loser.

Find your sac and answer the question.

 

[dkovic77]

That you believe that it's ok to break the rules because it benefits you and your cause doesn't mean that it really is ok.

BTW, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled that the drop boxes were ILLEGAL. That makes it a win for my argument and a loss for you. Thanks for playing.

Because it didn’t meet the statue doesn’t making it intentionally illegal. Again, there was time to challenge it prior to the general- and seems they didn’t. Their loss.

 

[HisArpy]

Because it didn’t meet the statue doesn’t making it intentionally illegal. Again, there was time to challenge it prior to the general- and seems they didn’t. Their loss.

Re intent:

General intent. General intent is when someone didn't actually set out to violate the law but their actions resulted in a violation anyway.

Specific intent. Specific intent occurs when an individual's acts were done with an actual desire to violate the law.


The dropboxes were a general intent offense. The intent wasn't to violate the law, it was to act in a way which might allow the results of the election to be manipulated by accruing additional votes from a specific voting bloc via an ILLEGALLY expanded method for acquiring those votes.

Of course you understand this but you cannot accept that your side got caught. So you lie and create false narratives to avoid the scrutiny your side's illegal behavior deserves. Which works in this case because no one will be punished for them breaking the law.

 

[ll74]

Re intent:

General intent. General intent is when someone didn't actually set out to violate the law but their actions resulted in a violation anyway.

Specific intent. Specific intent occurs when an individual's acts were done with an actual desire to violate the law.


The dropboxes were a general intent offense. The intent wasn't to violate the law, it was to act in a way which might allow the results of the election to be manipulated by accruing additional votes from a specific voting bloc via an ILLEGALLY expanded method for acquiring those votes.

Of course you understand this but you cannot accept that your side got caught. So you lie and create false narratives to avoid the scrutiny your side's illegal behavior deserves. Which works in this case because no one will be punished for them breaking the law.

The drop boxes were meant to provide health conscious access to voting. That's why both those and mail in voting restrictions were loosened during the pandemic.

The only reason there was an advantage towards a party is because 45 told his supporters that they should use those voting methods.

 

[dkovic77]

Re intent:

General intent. General intent is when someone didn't actually set out to violate the law but their actions resulted in a violation anyway.

Specific intent. Specific intent occurs when an individual's acts were done with an actual desire to violate the law.


The dropboxes were a general intent offense. The intent wasn't to violate the law, it was to act in a way which might allow the results of the election to be manipulated by accruing additional votes from a specific voting bloc via an ILLEGALLY expanded method for acquiring those votes.

Of course you understand this but you cannot accept that your side got caught. So you lie and create false narratives to avoid the scrutiny your side's illegal behavior deserves. Which works in this case because no one will be punished for them breaking the law.

Why do you prove it for me?

No intent is more like it. The drop boxes were there to answer the times- and only when DJT lost was it an issue. Not a primary problem.

And it’s not a side that did it. A bipartisan commission, created by the Republican Governor. And the chair was unanimously approved by the WI senate. Looking to place blame on a side is ridiculous.

 

[HisArpy]

Why do you prove it for me?

No intent is more like it. The drop boxes were there to answer the times- and only when DJT lost was it an issue. Not a primary problem.

And it’s not a side that did it. A bipartisan commission, created by the Republican Governor. And the chair was unanimously approved by the WI senate. Looking to place blame on a side is ridiculous.

EVERY time you decide to post shit it only proves that you know nothing while insisting that everyone laud you for it.

"The drop boxes were there to answer the times" is NOT a defense to breaking the law. The FACT that someone from the Elections Dept put them there, without having the law changed FIRST, is enough to constitute the offense.

And yet here you are defending whatever criminal(s) did it "because Trump."

What's worse than that is we've gone from you originally saying "it never happened" to "name just one time" to "who was in charge?" to "but they didn't mean to break the law" in your efforts to deny what you first said. Why? Because you're a fucking idiot who's completely oblivious to the real world and who parrots the narrative like a good little imbecile.

What a maroon...

 

[dkovic77]

A

EVERY time you decide to post shit it only proves that you know nothing while insisting that everyone laud you for it.

"The drop boxes were there to answer the times" is NOT a defense to breaking the law. The FACT that someone from the Elections Dept put them there, without having the law changed FIRST, is enough to constitute the offense.

And yet here you are defending whatever criminal(s) did it "because Trump."

What's worse than that is we've gone from you originally saying "it never happened" to "name just one time" to "who was in charge?" to "but they didn't mean to break the law" in your efforts to deny what you first said. Why? Because you're a fucking idiot who's completely oblivious to the real world and who parrots the narrative like a good little imbecile.

What a maroon...

Again, if it was so important to challenge- Challenge it during the primary, don’t wait for the general.

If not, shut up about it. It’s been corrected to reflect the statutes. Putting an illegal spin on it doesn’t really do anything. It’s not like the folks in NC who were found to be trying to disenfranchise folks.

In Wisconsin, it wasn’t malicious. In NC, certainly was.

 

[HisArpy]

A

Again, if it was so important to challenge- Challenge it during the primary, don’t wait for the general.

If not, shut up about it. It’s been corrected to reflect the statutes. Putting an illegal spin on it doesn’t really do anything. It’s not like the folks in NC who were found to be trying to disenfranchise folks.

In Wisconsin, it wasn’t malicious. In NC, certainly was.

JFC, the amount of time you spend denying reality is amazing. FWIW, malice is irrelevant. The offense was committed. WHY is irrelevant, only that the crime was done.

What's even more amazing is that you believe that it was ok in Wisc even after the courts say it wasn't, but that it wasn't ok in NC even though the courts have said it was.

It's like you're Mr. Backwards who lives in Crazytown on Bizarro World.

 

[dkovic77]

JFC, the amount of time you spend denying reality is amazing. FWIW, malice is irrelevant. The offense was committed. WHY is irrelevant, only that the crime was done.

What's even more amazing is that you believe that it was ok in Wisc even after the courts say it wasn't, but that it wasn't ok in NC even though the courts have said it was.

It's like you're Mr. Backwards who lives in Crazytown on Bizarro World.

The courts said it was okay? In NC? Ohhh it’s the south so it’s okay to discriminate. Got it.

 

[jaF0]

Please, please make it so ....

Sanctions Against Kari Lake Could Cost Her Nearly $700K​

Several of the defendants in Lake's effort to overturn the result of the recent election want her to pay thousands in legal expenses.


.

 

[HisArpy]

The courts said it was okay? In NC? Ohhh it’s the south so it’s okay to discriminate. Got it.

Lol, squirm and wiggle little worm all you want but you're not getting off the hook you impaled yourself on.

 

[HisArpy]

Please, please make it so ....

Sanctions Against Kari Lake Could Cost Her Nearly $700K​

Several of the defendants in Lake's effort to overturn the result of the recent election want her to pay thousands in legal expenses.


.

My goodness, unless you get better control of yourself you're going to squee and pee your pants like a girl over this. Man up, dude.

Now, usually the law is that if there's a case or controversy then the suit wasn't brought in bad faith and the party cannot be held liable for malpractice, contempt, or be a friviolous/vextatious litigant. All it requires is for the court to rule that there's enough of a controversy to need evidence to sort it out. That was done in this case by a 2-day trial whereby evidence was presented.

If there's a statute covering this then Lake can be required to pay legal fees/costs, as would be the case for anyone who loses their case. Should she prevail on appeal (unlikely since she's appealing to the 9th circuit) then the reverse could be true.



See, no pants peeing or squee-ing on your part required.

 

[coati]

My goodness, unless you get better control of yourself you're going to squee and pee your pants like a girl over this. Man up, dude.

Now, usually the law is that if there's a case or controversy then the suit wasn't brought in bad faith and the party cannot be held liable for malpractice, contempt, or be a friviolous/vextatious litigant. All it requires is for the court to rule that there's enough of a controversy to need evidence to sort it out. That was done in this case by a 2-day trial whereby evidence was presented.

If there's a statute covering this then Lake can be required to pay legal fees/costs, as would be the case for anyone who loses their case. Should she prevail on appeal (unlikely since she's appealing to the 9th circuit) then the reverse could be true.



See, no pants peeing or squee-ing on your part required.

Nahh, Harpy, once again you are talking out of your butt rather than understanding what is actually happening in this case.

Keri Lake started accusing the judge of somehow being involved in the conspiracy against her, also. She had to delete one of her on-line postings about that, but the cat was already out of the bag. At some point, the legal system has to evaluate whether she is pulling all this shit more for publicity purposes and grandstanding to her base than "good faith appeals".

You may love conspiracy theories that line up with your MAGA paranoia, but the legal system has a responsibility to ferret out frivolous lawsuits whether you like it or not. Her conspiracy theory will soon be discharged from the legal system, and you can then return to your lab to study why water shed its molecular link to carbon shortly after one of your postings on Lit.

 

[HisArpy]

Nahh, Harpy, once again you are talking out of your butt rather than understanding what is actually happening in this case.

Keri Lake started accusing the judge of somehow being involved in the conspiracy against her, also. She had to delete one of her on-line postings about that, but the cat was already out of the bag. At some point, the legal system has to evaluate whether she is pulling all this shit more for publicity purposes and grandstanding to her base than "good faith appeals".

You may love conspiracy theories that line up with your MAGA paranoia, but the legal system has a responsibility to ferret out frivolous lawsuits whether you like it or not. Her conspiracy theory will soon be discharged from the legal system, and you can then return to your lab to study why water shed its molecular link to carbon shortly after one of your postings on Lit.

Lol, what someone says while not in court has NOTHING to do with whether they brought a meritless action or not.

But you just keep on believing.

 

[dkovic77]

Lol, squirm and wiggle little worm all you want but you're not getting off the hook you impaled yourself on.

No wiggling… if it was such a big issue in WI, challenge it before the general. R’s didn’t.

But what the R’s did do was pass a voter ID law in NC that is discriminatory. Imagine the surprise!

Intent is key. One (Wisconsin) wasn’t trying to do anything against a statute but happened to go against it- and now it’s corrected.

The other, well they knew what they were doing.