"The trial court judge in Kari Lake’s "election lawsuit predictably threw out her case on Saturday, putting on a sham trial that on the surface looked fair to the general public that doesn't know any better, but to legal minds was a travesty of justice."
— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) December 26, 2022
https://t.co/4vDnkQvuBs
How so, you ask.
For starters, the judge granted only 2 days of trial, and some claim that his judgment was already written. No deliberations on the merits of the case.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson only gave her two days for a trial and issued his ruling immediately afterwards, even though rare gearing to put the results of an election to the test. Not sohe could have taken several days, and it was one of the biggest, most important cases in the country. Legal experts believe his decision was ghostwritten, they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say.
And the burden of proof of intentional interference was high.
Instead, Thompson said Lake had to show an extremely vague, high bar in order to prevail, that an election official intentionally caused the printer changes in order to change the results of the election, and that it did affect the outcome. He explained away many of the disturbing election anomalies as accidents or mere coincidences. He ignored the vast majority of them; in a show of arrogance, his opinion was less than eight pages long.
I, too, thought this was a rare example of the election results being cross examined. Turns our it's not.
Thompson said in his opinion that it was unprecedented in history to set aside an election like that, but he was mincing words. It’s happened many times. In 2013, in Pembroke, North Carolina, a new election was ordered for town council after it came out that at least two candidates helped bring people to the town's early voting location who were ineligible to vote. In 2018, in Sharpsburg, North Carolina, a judge merely cited “an irregularity” as enough to order a new election. There, only 20-25 voters were alleged to have been disenfranchised.
No comments:
Post a Comment