Kari Lake- tape recording request to 'pause'... AZ State GOP Chariman Jeff DeWit resigns.

[KG1]

As I stated in the above post. People defending it is a good sign.

Evil is still evil if everyone does it.
Good is still good if nobody does it.

Who in the hell is defending It? I have made a number of posts stating that I'm not defending or condoning what took place. You seem to be conveniently glossing over those posts. You probably should step off with that accusation.

 

[DadSmith]

I apologize to those whom I've upset in this thread. It was not my intention.

 

[jamil]

It sounds oddly similar to Abrams's claims when Kemp was SOS, and all the urban areas had long lines.

Kemp should have recused himself.

 

[KG1]

I apologize to those whom I've upset in this thread. It was not my intention.

Hey on my part I applaud your passion and I share all of those concerns with you. I just had a disagreement concerning legalities without intending to defend or condone what took place. Early on I said that it was scummy and unethical.

Anyway, I've probably said enough, and I wish you no ill will. HAGD.

 

[BugI02]

mehhhhhhh... I wouldnt call writing somebody a big enough check a "forcing". Accepting big bucks in exchange for going away sounds like a voluntary transaction to me.

Not saying its right, just that its a voluntary exchange

As I listen to this guy whinge about how Kari betrayed his trust, I wonder if he wouldn't have done the same thing to her had she accepted the offer because her candidacy was the problem 'back east' wanted sorted out, and what better and more permanent way than to credibly paint her as for sale

 

[BugI02]

If she's so damn terrible as you say, why offer her riches to stop her campaign?

Because he believes only the politicians he approves of have any chance of winning

 

[KG1]

I'm wondering when Kari is going to wake up with a figurative bloody horsehead in her bed for refusing an offer that she cannot refuse.

 

[BugI02]

He needs arrested and put on trial. He had to break some kind of law, along with those making the offer.

Heck, in Biden's America you don't even have to commit a crime to be arrested and tried. Putting the squeeze on this guy should be easy, just make sure you lock him up in solitary in a red state prison where the cameras work and the guards don't sleep on the job

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Because he believes only the politicians he approves of have any chance of winning

Nonsense. Kari Lake could win in Wyoming, and I wouldn't care. She's not my cup of tea, but whatever. It is more important than one person for swing states to determine if we get SCOTUS DEI or SCOTUS Kavanaugh, the Inflation Reduction Act or nothing, a Schumer majority or an R majority. She proved she couldn't win Arizona. Arizona is too important. We need to run to win in races that can go either way. We have a cottage industry of outrage enthusiasts who love to run Mastrianos and Bolducs and lose, generate outrage, generate cash, and repeat. Look at those pushing Matt Rosendale in MT.

 

[KG1]

I'm wondering when Kari is going to wake up with a figurative bloody horsehead in her bed for refusing an offer that she cannot refuse.

Sticking with the Godfather theme. Figuratively speaking again those back east are the Corleone family and DeWit is the go between Tom Hayden.

 

[jamil]

Because you are parroting the left when you say it. You are being used as a tool.

I'm parroting the left? I think you're still conflating standards between what can be done about the problems with the election and the standards for what you believe those problems were exactly. I'm talking about what to do about it. I believe that if the election was fair, Trump would have won. I don't know how to quantify the extent to which illegitimate votes were counted, or votes for Trump weren't counted. That's the part you have to prove in court. But you still insist that becasue I'm not using Trumper langauge to talk about it, I must be parroting the left, whatever the **** that means.

DadSmith kinda did the same to you that you do to me. He said you're saying something you didn't say, because what you did say isn't orthodox.

Awesome you are for buying out political power as you see fit.

You never said that. All you said is that you didn't think it was illegal to offer a candidate money to stay out. You weren't justifying the guy's actions or making a judgement of right or wrong. But, that's not what your team expects you to say. You're supposed to say, it's a bribe and evidence of blah, blah, blah. It's like someone being called an Uncle Tom when a black person doesn't go along with woke ****.

So, I say I don't have evidence that x number of votes were stolen, sufficient to prove it in courts SO THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, which has nothing to do with what I actually believe, well. That's just not what I'm supposed to say. The team expects me to say the election was stolen and Trump should be reinstated. I'm afraid I'm not the tool here.

How can one prove anything if the corrupt establishment agencies will not investigate, prosecute, hear cases, allow discovery, and allow evidence? We all see the evidence, even you admit it warrants further investigation.

That's the problem. It warranted further investigation. It should have been investigated. I don't think it can be proven in court at this point. There is no satisfaction you can have other than some wins here and there, hopefully to make elections more reliable in the future. But no one is united even on that front. Trumpers would rather whine the 2020 election was stolen. Trumpers made J6 about trying to reinstate Trump, which was never going to happen, instead of making about restoring election integrity. It's probably too late for that now that 2024 is upon us.

If half of the hundreds of cases were thrown out on standing and the rest independently adjudicated and decided that no fraud occurred would be one thing. But when they ALL are tossed without hearings, discovery, and evidence presented, that is organized institutional corruption.

If, if if. Pipedreams. it's kind of tough **** if you can't prove it. And they pulled things off in a way that's hard to prove. So what the **** are you going to do about it? I asked that question before. What you said amounts to not much more than spread awareness. Trump wasn't trying to fix anything. His efforts in court seemed to be more targeted to getting himself reinstated rather than investigating election anomalies. I think if everyone were focused on one thing, possibly more could have been done.

As far as no standing, why couldn't anyone sue who did have standing? Texas is not going to get to sue because of how Pennsylvania held its elections. ***damn straight Texas doesn't have standing.

As far as Kraken go, if any of it were true, it would be small fish compared to the ballot harvesting exploitation of mail-in ballots. That's something that is hard to prove, but also is at a scale fitting for the 7M votes Biden won by. ***damn sure those votes weren't changed by hacking into voting machines. Not on that scale. But I guess crazy ass Kraken stories involing clandestine operations, and FBI raids in Germany, are much more delicious. That **** might as well have been to get you guys focused on nonsense so that you wouldn't be as outraged over what actually happened. Because it sure had that effect.

So more left wing talking points? If you think so you didn't read it.

 

[jamil]

If he had proved the count was wrong, the extent of the condition would be justified and reasonable. His pack of back alley retard lawyers, now replaced with bikini lawyers, completely misrepresented the claims and provided nothing for anyone to justify an investigation like you are pretending is warranted.

True. The challenges he actually made didn't make a lot of sense. As the candidate, he had the standing to challenge a lot of stuff in court. But, also, the courts weren't too interested at that time to entertain much from him. What with all the silly alternate elector slate crap happening. And J6 turning into a quest to make Pence make him POTUS again.

A lot of those claims warranted investigations. But the response to the election was very disorganized. The person who had standing sued for silly ****. Meanwhile, others tried to sue for the right things, but they didn't have standing. So it just looks like all the court cases failed. And they did. But because of the incompetence of the response. SD4L and a few others think it was all lies. I think it was incompetence.

 

[KG1]

I'm parroting the left? I think you're still conflating standards between what can be done about the problems with the election and the standards for what you believe those problems were exactly. I'm talking about what to do about it. I believe that if the election was fair, Trump would have won. I don't know how to quantify the extent to which illegitimate votes were counted, or votes for Trump weren't counted. That's the part you have to prove in court. But you still insist that becasue I'm not using Trumper langauge to talk about it, I must be parroting the left, whatever the **** that means.

DadSmith kinda did the same to you that you do to me. He said you're saying something you didn't say, because what you did say isn't orthodox.



You never said that. All you said is that you didn't think it was illegal to offer a candidate money to stay out. That's not what your team expects you to say. You're supposed to say, it's a bribe and evidence of blah, blah, blah.

So, I say I don't have evidence that x number of votes were stolen, sufficient to prove it in courts SO THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, which has nothing to do with what I actually believe, well. That's just not what I'm supposed to say. The team expects me to say the election was stolen and Trump should be reinstated. I'm afraid I'm not the tool here.


That's the problem. It warranted further investigation. It should have been investigated. I don't think it can be proven in court at this point. There is no satisfaction you can have other than some wins here and there, hopefully to make elections more reliable in the future. But no one is united even on that front. Trumpers would rather whine the 2020 election was stolen. Trumpers made J6 about trying to reinstate Trump, which was never going to happen, instead of making about restoring election integrity. It's probably too late for that now that 2024 is upon us.


If, if if. Pipedreams. it's kind of tough **** if you can't prove it. And they pulled things off in a way that's hard to prove. So what the **** are you going to do about it? I asked that question before. What you said amounts to not much more than spread awareness. Trump wasn't trying to fix anything. His efforts in court seemed to be more targeted to getting himself reinstated rather than investigating election anomalies. I think if everyone were focused on one thing, possibly more could have been done.

As far as no standing, why couldn't anyone sue who did have standing? Texas is not going to get to sue because of how Pennsylvania held its elections. ***damn straight Texas doesn't have standing.

As far as Kraken go, if any of it were true, it would be small fish compared to the ballot harvesting exploitation of mail-in ballots. That's something that is hard to prove, but also is at a scale fitting for the 7M votes Biden won by. ***damn sure those votes weren't changed by hacking into voting machines. Not on that scale. But I guess crazy ass Kraken stories involing clandestine operations, and FBI raids in Germany, are much more delicious. That **** might as well have been to get you guys focused on nonsense so that you wouldn't be as outraged over what actually happened. Because it sure had that effect.

So more left wing talking points? If you think so you didn't read it.

I dismiss this lengthy post as left-wing parroting.

 

[manifest destiny]

it's kind of tough **** if you can't prove it.

Tough to do with a court system that declares a case as not ripe, moot, no standing simply because they'd prefer not to judge the case on its merits. That's what is so infuriating about the government pollyannas in this thread.

"The courts said it wasn't true!" No, the courts said they didn't want to hear the case. Ugh!

 

[BugI02]

Nonsense. Kari Lake could win in Wyoming, and I wouldn't care. She's not my cup of tea, but whatever. It is more important than one person for swing states to determine if we get SCOTUS DEI or SCOTUS Kavanaugh, the Inflation Reduction Act or nothing, a Schumer majority or an R majority. She proved she couldn't win Arizona. Arizona is too important. We need to run to win in races that can go either way. We have a cottage industry of outrage enthusiasts who love to run Mastrianos and Bolducs and lose, generate outrage, generate cash, and repeat. Look at those pushing Matt Rosendale in MT.

Funny, I could have sworn plenty of politicians don't win their first election attempts to high office. Nixon comes to mind, losing in a close election to Kennedy with evidence of some sketchy voting coming to light later (sounds familiar). Then running again, winning and being re-elected in a landslide because democrats always either run crazy left wing candidates or act crazy left wing as incumbents

If conditions were the same, seems like she only needs 17.1k more votes than last time and there are some provisions in place to prevent a repeat of the chea ... err ... irregularities - and that election was at a time when republicans underperformed. What do you think the odds are now she can improve her vote totals after 3 years of Biden and perhaps as many as 10 million illegals?

You're free to conclude it is one and done for people like Kari. It's a free country so it's OK to be wrong. TPTB don't try to buy off people they think will lose anyway

 

[manifest destiny]

TPTB don't try to buy off people they think will lose anyway

Quoted for posterity.

 

[jamil]

Tough to do with a court system that declares a case as not ripe, moot, no standing simply because they'd prefer not to judge the case on its merits. That's what is so infuriating about the government pollyannas in this thread.

"The courts said it wasn't true!" No, the courts said they didn't want to hear the case. Ugh!

In the case of no standing, they’re not wrong.

 

[manifest destiny]

In the case of no standing, they’re not wrong.

Texas sued four states. Seventeen other states signed an amicus in agreement with Texas. Scotus refused to hear the case. Cop out.

 

[manifest destiny]

If Texas has no standing to sue Wisconson, who does? No standing was a full-fledged cop out by a bench filled with chicken-****s. Scotus couldn't be bothered with constitutional question that undermine the liberty of Americans. Sadly, the ignorant take the no standing declaration and twist it into, "the courts said it wasn't true!"


State attorneys general said in their amicus brief that the case “raises constitutional questions of great public importance that warrant this Court’s review” and the Supreme Court should grant Texas’ motion for leave to file a leave of complaint, alleging that the battleground states’ supposed infractions “undermined the liberty of all Americans.”

 

[jamil]

Texas sued four states. Seventeen other states signed an amicus in agreement with Texas. Scotus refused to hear the case. Cop out.

SCOTUS ruled that a state does not have Texas does not have standing to challenge election results of another state. Because they don't.

Here's something interesting. Texas sued those states under the theory that it violated ISL (Independent State Legislature theory) which asserts that state legislatures have sole authority, pretty much regardless of state courts' judicial review, or other state officials. So it seems Ingomike is a proponent of that legal theory. SCOTUS shot that down in 2023 in a gerymandering case in NC. Not only did Texas not have standing, but even if it did, SCOTUS would have had the opportunity to scuttle ISL much sooner than 2023.