Whither LDP? When I saw this on the local news yesterday I immediately thought of him.

nortex97 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If there is one thing I've learned from President Trump is that we need to fight back.

---

Taking a default on liability is "fighting back"?

---

Her words, not mine, but yeah I dunno why she failed to file a response. Did this guy really have to go get psychiatric help/treatment because of mean words from Kari? LOL.

Quote:

---

Today, Lake's attorneys Jennifer Wright and Tim La Sota asked the court to set a hearing to assess damages owed to Richer.

In the motion, they ask a jury and judge to go over the facts and root out any allegations they claim are not "well-pled," and ask Richer to "be prepared to disclose competent evidence of causation" linking "his categories of defamation ("Ballot Size Sabotage" and "Bogus Ballot Injection") and his claimed categories of damages."

And as for damages, Wright and La Sota ask Richer to provide total expenses incurred for Richer's "psychiatric and psychological treatment" in relation to his mental health impact and a list of Republican donors and networks that "abandoned Richer and just how much it cost him."

---

People are so damn soft nowadays…/rant.

---

She did file a response; she tried to get it dismissed. When that was denied, she threw in the towel.


First Rudy, now Kari. It's like they both knew a lot of the bombs they were throwing were lies.

I believe he commented when she was gearing up for this senate run she was making some mistakes/going in the wrong direction.

It is what it is at this point. A pretty tough race for her to win, but putting this behind her probably makes sense so it doesn't draw out (although, her team is the one that drew it out this long). I don't think she's made all the 'right' decisions but I do hope she wins. The two most recent post-primary polls have it very close/tight, yet the one that shows her ahead was GOP sponsored, and Emerson I am not a big fan of.

I'm inclined to think it has narrowed a bit since the Noble one in mid-february (head to head, with sinema out) just because so many people are sick of the invasion/crime/democrat economic destruction. I doubt this suit impacts the vote in November at all at this point, so there is probably some merit to her 'strategy' there to just take it off the table but realistically it is going to be tough, and yes there will be more fraud in Maricopa county.

HTownAg98 said:

---

First Rudy, now Kari. It's like they both knew a lot of the bombs they were throwing were lies.

---

of course they did. No sane person would believe the nonsense that they were spewing.

nortex97 said:

---

I believe he commented when she was gearing up for this senate run she was making some mistakes/going in the wrong direction.

It is what it is at this point. A pretty tough race for her to win, but putting this behind her probably makes sense so it doesn't draw out (although, her team is the one that drew it out this long). I don't think she's made all the 'right' decisions but I do hope she wins. The two most recent post-primary polls have it very close/tight, yet the one that shows her ahead was GOP sponsored, and Emerson I am not a big fan of.

I'm inclined to think it has narrowed a bit since the Noble one in mid-february (head to head, with sinema out) just because so many people are sick of the invasion/crime/democrat economic destruction. I doubt this suit impacts the vote in November at all at this point, so there is probably some merit to her 'strategy' there to just take it off the table but realistically it is going to be tough, and yes there will be more fraud in Maricopa county.

---

I'm sure there will be "fraud" if Lake loses. And I'm sure we'll go another few years waiting for the proof while she continually sends out more fundraising emails.

jt2hunt said:

---

Interesting that 19 inch paper is one of the claims of a false statement. That should be easy to prove or not with a tape measure.

---

Unless, of course, they were destroyed as "normal course of election procedure".

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

And as for damages, Wright and La Sota ask Richer to provide total expenses incurred for Richer's "psychiatric and psychological treatment" in relation to his mental health impact and a list of Republican donors and networks that "abandoned Richer and just how much it cost him."

---

Her lawyers asked for basic discovery materials. Impressive.

This guy still has to prove his damages. I doubt he has any actual psych issues.

But the "I'm not fighting liability because we have to fight" is nonsensical.

---

"We're only agreeing to the well-pled stuff" also sounds like a non-serious way to keep pretending she's "fighting" this. I'm not familiar with the procedure and what not in this case, but that sounds a little bit lame.

I've no idea about the damages, but I don't think her followers have been invested in this because the guy might have been damaged, but rather because they believe(d) in the underlying claims about the election.

jt2hunt said:

---

Interesting that 19 inch paper is one of the claims of a false statement. That should be easy to prove or not with a tape measure.

---

I watched the Lake trials. That is exactly what Clay Parikh did. He asked for a randomly selected stack of ballots and he immediately spotted the problem, asked for a ruler. The Maricopa "expert" that was sitting next to him as an observer had no clue why he asked for a ruler. Apparently he was unfamiliar with how the timing marks around the edges of ballot were what the tabulators used to be able to read them and tally them. Hence, putting the wrong size image on a piece of paper, threw the tabulators off so they were rejected.

And FTR, those ballot image sizes are contained i the ballot definition files that are in the EMS, the main server which is supposed to have very limited admin only access. The 19 inch image was not a whoopsie daisy, it was coded into the software. Even Ryan Macias, Maricopa County's expert (had worked at the EAC previously) confirmed that, although in such an oblique manner that the judge didn't understand it.

That said, Lake's lawyers in those trials were not that great at all. Then again, neither were Maricopa County's.

Kansas Kid said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

Not a big fan of Lake, but what is the limiting principal here?

Bush was called a war criminal for years by high profile people. If he was more in the public eye I imagine people would still level that charge at him.

Stephen Richter is an elected official. How far does this go here? Are we hopeful we get to the point in this country where nobody is allowed to question elections or say what they want about any elected officials?

I'm pretty sure there are already countries out there like this. They certainly aren't countries I want to live in.

On the flip side. The GOP grassroots needs to move on from anyone that is not focused on the future and smarter about attacking election fraud.

---

I will leave up to the lawyers as to one is public enough to have a higher standard to meet. Clearly, Presidents of both parties have been called a number of things that are libel and untrue. Could they sue, maybe but I think it would hurt their image more than any monetary award they could get.

People need to be able to question elections but I think the key is to have proof and not just throw up everything and see if it sticks. The Trump wing has started claiming stolen election months before every election including in places where the electoral officials are mostly Rs

I agree Republicans need to work on the grassroots get out the vote efforts. Continuing to repeat 2020 was stolen is a losing strategy as shown time and time again in elections across this country. People want to hear what candidates are going to do if elected not whining about the past.

---

One day, people will figure out the game being played, and will adequately address it. You've unknowingly pointed it out in the bolded paragraph.

As with the 2020 election, the concept that Dems rely on of needing to provide iron clad proof to insure that an election was not free and fair needs to be changed. Because once the impropriety is discovered, and claims of malfeasance are made, these "elected officials" in charge of running elections lawyer up, resist discovery, destroy evidence, and basically do everything they can to defend what they have done - from a legal perspective.

But therein lies the rub. Once a valid claim of wrongdoing is made,burden of proof should be on the administrators of the election to demostrate that what they did was above board. That is why there is an audit procedure, as well as there should be full transparency of the process. The people running these elections have also taken an oath, but they are not held to that oath in court. They should be.

Once it was determined that there were printing irregularities on the ballots, a full force investigation should ensue to figure out how that happened. However, we're seeing lawyering up and claims of "proprietary algorithm" nonsense being hid behind.

As well, screaming "Election Denier" over and over again will never, EVER make the questions go away. It is a simple deflection from the issue.

Quote:

---

One day, people will figure out the game being played, and will adequately address it. You've unknowingly pointed it out in the bolded paragraph.

As with the 2020 election, the concept that Dems rely on of needing to provide iron clad proof to insure that an election was not free and fair needs to be changed. Because once the impropriety is discovered, and claims of malfeasance are made, these "elected officials" in charge of running elections lawyer up, resist discovery, destroy evidence, and basically do everything they can to defend what they have done - from a legal perspective.

But therein lies the rub. Once a valid claim of wrongdoing is made,burden of proof should be on the administrators of the election to demostrate that what they did was above board. That is why there is an audit procedure, as well as there should be full transparency of the process. The people running these elections have also taken an oath, but they are not held to that oath in court. They should be.

Once it was determined that there were printing irregularities on the ballots, a full force investigation should ensue to figure out how that happened. However, we're seeing lawyering up and claims of "proprietary algorithm" nonsense being hid behind.

As well, screaming "Election Denier" over and over again will never, EVER make the questions go away. It is a simple deflection from the issue.

---

Realistically, fraud is one of those claims that must be asserted with specificity but can a candidate or plaintiff show that without discovery? Unlikely. And the rules governing when an answer is due allows a lot of valuable time to elapse. Again I am talking about the safe harbor provision under the ECA. States have to certify by that date in mid December, or else run the risk their state's electors won't be counted and their voters disenfranchised.

Combine everything and court proceedings post election have about a 35 day window. That's it. Too short for any meaningful review nor chance to gain discovery.

Start with the voter rolls. Even then, state election officials are fighting every effort to get the voter rolls cleaned up.