The original site contains a PDF of the decision: https://archive.vn/9heOD

Kari Lake lost her election contest and she will appeal.

This doesn't really surprise me, but I do like how this seems to have turned out here. I actually think there's a lot of good news here because the judgement basically ignored the defense's [Maricopa's] claims (except for one or two times). The rest of the judgement is not filled with exaggerated hyperbole about how Kari Lake is a terrorist trying to undermine democracy. Instead it's basically just saying: "Hey, you didn't meet the burden of proof". To be honest, given this decision, the entirety of the Maricopa's case seems to be based around actually trying to cover thier own ass in the public sphere, and failing to do it properly. I think this case has actually hurt their credibility much more than it would have if the case hadn't been televised. Thank fucking Christ for that!

Here's the burden that she had to get through:

The burden of proof in an election contest is on the challenger. Findley v. Sorenson, 35 Ariz. 265, 271-72 (1929). “The duty of specifying and pointing out the alleged illegal irregularities and insufficiencies is a task that should be undertaken by litigants and their counsel.” Grounds v. Lawe, 67 Ariz. 176, 189 (1948).

The election is basically valid until explicitly proven to be false by the challenger.

As for the actions of elections officials themselves, this Court must presume the good faith of their official conduct as a matter of law. Hunt, 19 Ariz. at 268. “[A]ll reasonable presumptions must favor the validity of an election.” Moore v. City of Page, 148 Ariz. 151, 155 (App. 1986). Election challengers must prove the elements of their claim by clear and convincing evidence. Cf. McClung v. Bennett, 225 Ariz. 154, 156, ¶ 7 (2010).

This is a big deal. ALL election officials are ASSUMED to be operating in good faith until explicitly proven otherwise. That's a crazy legal standard in any normal environment, but this is how bias the law is in favor in assuming the legitimacy of an election. Imagine a police corruption case where every police officer's testimony is assumed to be true until explicitly proven by the plaintiff to be false. If it's false, then you are legally required to assume it's an honest-to-goodness whoopsie-doodle until you prove malice and intent.

Uh, bit of a high burden there.

Here's the specific issues with the plaintif's arguments:

In his closing, counsel for Plaintiff argues that it “does not make sense” that Maricopa County did not know how many ballots Maricopa County had received on election night. But, at Trial, it was not Maricopa County’s burden to establish that its process or procedure was reasonable, or that it had an accurate unofficial count on Election Night. Even if the County did bear that burden, failing to carry it would not be enough to set aside election returns.

Basically acquiescing that it's not even enough for Maricopa County to even know how many votes it had at the time, or even that their Change of Custody processes were reasonable, just that they followed them.

The Court notes that Mr. Parikh also acknowledged a fact admitted by several of Plaintiff’s witnesses: that any ballot that could not be read due to BOD printer or tabulator failure could be submitted for ballot duplication and adjudication through Door 3 on the tabulators. Plaintiff’s own expert acknowledged that a ballot that was unable to be read at the vote center could be deposited by a voter, duplicated by a bipartisan board onto a readable ballot, and – in the final analysis – counted. Thus, Plaintiff’s expert on this point admitted that the voters who suffered from tabulator rejections would nevertheless have their votes counted. This, at a minimum, means that the actual impact element of Count II could not be proven. The BOD printer failures did not actually affect the results of the election.

This one was something the defense team harped on: if the ballots were put into unsecure boxes and counted by people at a different polling station, it means that the judge has to assume that the ballots were counted. Basically, Kari Lake's team would have to explicitly prove that ballots were lost before counting, or that they were counted incorrectly (which is impossible because Maricopa destroyed most of the original votes). Even given the destruction of evidence, even given the lack of secure procedures, even given the unreasonable procedures, until Kari's team can prove that a persona acted with malice, we must assume that they acted entirely in good faith. So, no dice.

Further, Mr. Baris admitted at Trial that “nobody can give a specific number” of voters who were put off from voting on Election Day. Thus, even if Plaintiff proved elements 1-3 of Count II by clear and convincing evidence, the truth of this statement alone dooms element 4. No election in Arizona has ever been set aside, no result modified, because of a statistical estimate. ... Indeed, to the extent that a range of outcomes was suggested by Mr. Baris, he suggested that – with his expected turnout increase on Election Day of 25,000-40,000 votes the outcome could be between a 2,000-vote margin for Hobbs to a 4,000-vote margin for Plaintiff. Taking Mr. Baris’s claims at face value, this does not nearly approach the degree of precision that would provide clear and convincing evidence that the result did change as a result of BOD printer failures. ... While this Court (in the absence of controlling authority) is reticent to state that statistical evidence is always insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate a direct effect on the outcome of an election, a statistical analysis that shows that the current winner had a good chance of winning anyway is decidedly insufficient...

Again, the height of the bar is effectively insurmountable. Convincing statistical evidence is not enough, either Mr. Baris knew that exactly greater than 17,117 voters were unable to vote for Kari Lake specifically, or he did not. And since he didn't have the names and addresses of those +17,117 voters, and their corresponding testimony, then no dice.

The closest Plaintiff came to making an argument for quantifiable changes resulting from misconduct, was Ms. Marie’s Affidavit as discussed by Ms. Honey. Again, she states that Runbeck Election Services employees were permitted to introduce about 50 ballots of family members into the stream. But even this is not sufficient. Such a claim – if the Court accepted the Affidavit at face value – would constitute misconduct but would not come close to clear and convincing evidence that the election outcome was affected

So, this is a kind of horrific bit of evidence that the court is actually willing to entertain at face value by saying that 50 ballots were manually injected into Chain of Custody. Even in this case, this witness needed 17,067 additional ballots to be identified as being inappropriately added to the pile, it's not enough to beat the burden of proof required.

Okay, so yeah: "Didn't meet the burden of proof".

However, this is a burden of proof so fucking high that no normal human would honestly hold as a standard, even to your own family. This standard actually seems more strict than most criminal trials. Frankly, with a burden of proof this high, the cops who shot Daniel Shaver would have gotten off. The media was wrong when they said "Kari Lake has to identify a specific person who acted maliciously", because they actually kind of undersold the burden. She had to find dozens of specific people that explicitly fucked up the vote of at least 17,117 that would have voted for her. That is why Maricopa county thinks they can get away with both voter fraud and rampaging incompetence. However, in doing so, they've actually kind of exposed themselves (again) as being violently incompetent if not outright fraudulent. The judge isn't actually trying to act and sound like a hyper-partisan Neo-Con, possibly because of how closely surveilled the trail was, and so we don't see the partisan screeching that we saw from the PA SC in Giuliani's lawsuit, or the breathless condemnation and demands for disbarment that we saw directed at Sidney Powell.

If I were Kari Lake, I'd totally appeal this case, but not on the grounds that the burden of proof could have been met if they had a re-trail. Instead: focus on getting a retrail on different issues, the ones that were dismissed earlier. Drag this back into televised court again, and drag an entirely different set of problems, witnesses, and evidence to the forefront. Keep hammering on the suspicious behavior of the Maricopa BoE, and drive home the point of their utter incompetence as the most charitable interpretation.

It's not a legal win, but I think it's a big gain publicly against the Uniparty in the arena of public trust and confidence.

I've said it before, the correct plan here is to actually start bussing Republicans to Democratic polling stations to prevent pre-planned fraud. I don't like Ballot Harvesting, but until you make it illegal, you will probably have to do it. And (to AoV's credit), you may need to get some republicans to vote early to throw off the planned fraud.

Post #24 of Part 7 of the Twitter Leaks is actually very valuable to understanding something about the Psychological Operations and Information Operations being wielded against the American people, because it also happens to show the particularly weaponization of Yoel Roth

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604892289800605697

In the video he gives this quote:

It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells.

Yoel Roth, as we have seen, is a rabid partisan Leftist TDS sufferer (TDS in and of itself is a industrial scale emotional abuse directed at the general public by the Social Justice Racket). But if we hyper-focus on just what he tried to do at Twitter, we've seen several instances of Yoel specifically letting some Trump posts and Conservative posts slide because he knew that they didn't actually violate Twitter's TOS. His bias was severe, but he did seem to try and take (what he thought) was an even handed approach.

From his perspective, he was trying to follow procedure to the letter. In reality, his Progressive Weltanschauung (ideological, meta-narrative, world-view, of how the world normally has/does/should operate) structured his perception of reality but Twitter's TOS as a procedure had to follow within that. This means that he, of course, made good faith assumptions when fellow Leftists made threats or jokes that were actionable; and made bad faith assumptions when non-Leftists did the same. BUT, when he was pushed to review Trump's tweet's carefully, or even Republican politicians and activists carefully, he recognized the folly of some of the reports he got. In this batch of leaks, he mentioned that a black-specific version of #WalkAway that WaPo reported on was completely genuine. In another, he noted that factual evidence corroborated a Trump Tweet about ballot problems in Ohio.

So, let's go back to the quote. How exactly did he develop a "finely tuned" intuition on Russian military intelligence operations?

The FBI fed it to him.

Having already seized Hunter's hard-drive back in 2019, the FBI's internal subversive: John Baker, would have already had an amicable working relationship with him. Knowing how to manipulate the media, they engaged in what I would call a "Drip Campaign" against Useful Idiots within Twitter who were subservient to the Progressive Weltanschauung. The FBI had already built part of the Progressive Weltanschauung by inventing the "2016 Russian Collusion" hoax already. Even though it's been well established that the most effective Russian intelligence efforts in 2016 were the use of BLM and Bernie accounts to sew discord, an entire narrative of "Russia created the Wikileaks scandal by hacking the DNC" was already accepted as fact within the Weltanschauung. The FBI knew this was false because they had been spoon-fed the allegation from the Clinton Campaign, and basically disproved the damn thing.

On a side note: Michael Sussman, representing the Clinton Campaign, would later go on to inform John Baker himself that the Steele Dossier was totally legit after having procured it from the Jeb Bush campaign, justifying the FBI's initial surveillance of Donald Trump. That Dossier was proven false by the FBI's own forensic's lab, so they falsified the FISA warrant to illegal monitor Trump and his campaign, with the monitoring of Obama's cabinet, and Joe Biden. Just so we're all clear on how many crimes the FBI and John Baker are committing at any given time.

Going back to Yoel Roth. He's already ideologically captured. He already has John Baker acting as a "Wormtounge" in his ear. Then he starts meeting with the FBI on a regular basis who keep harping on the dangers likely Russian disinfo week after week after week. The narrative never stops and the propaganda simply becomes accepted as truth even though these leaks show Twitter can't find any Russian disinfo anyway. The whole year, Roth had been told about how the Russians hacked the DNC, what Russian military intelligence operations looked like, how ever present the threat was, and how vigilant he needed to be.

Then the NY Post's story came out.

The power of the the subversion "rings true" in his statement on post #28:

The key factor in informing our approach is consensus from experts in monitoring election security and disinformation that this looks a lot like a hack-and-leak that learned from the 2016 Wikileaks approach and our policy changes. The suggestion from experts - which rings true - is there was a hack that happened separately, and they loaded the hacked materials on the laptop that magically appeared at a repair shop in Delaware (and was coincidentally reviewed in a very invasive way by someone who coincidentally then handed the materials to Rudy Giuliani)

When you combine the FBI's subversion with how the media cultivated a narrative within the Progressive Weltanschauung, you see how he was controlled:

• The "experts" are the FBI agents that subverted him and gave him a Drip Campaign over the course of a year.
• He didn't know the 2016 Wikileaks event was not a Russian Information Operation because of his acceptance of the Progressive Weltanschauung, and because James Baker and the FBI played into it.
• The FBI fabricated the idea that Hunter's hard-drive was hacked and deposited onto the hard drive, despite having the hard drive themselves. This lie was then spoon-fed to both the media and Yoel.
• Yoel was never told about how the laptop arrived at the repair shop, despite the shop owner stating he had taken it from Hunter, and despite the invoice with Hunter's signature on it. The FBI and the media never told him that it existed, so he called it "magic".
• Yoel had this weird idea about "invasive review" despite that not effecting anything regarding the data. It is very likely that someone from the FBI or CISA lied to him about how data can be verified, as someone also told him that "the metadata was gone from the emails", which was another lie.
• Yoel assumed there was some 'coincidence' regarding the laptop being handed to Rudy Giuliani, despite the fact that the shopkeeper explicitly stated he handed it to Rudy after he gave it to the FBI the previous year and never heard anything back, despite witnessing criminal activity on the laptop. Yoel appears to not been aware of any of that either.

What we see here is a kind of psychological priming that the FBI did to get Yoel to behave in the way he did, and create a narrative in his head about what happened. They fed into his world view. They build the meta-narrative in the media. They "educated" him on what to look for for disinformation. They "educated" him on what were indicators. They fed him their "knowledge and expertise" on technical issues. Yoel was so invested into the FBI's narrative for over a year, he eventually worked to manufacture it without realizing it.

Yoel also had no outside input. He didn't review Fox News, he didn't review the New York Post, he most certainly didn't watch this clip of the Louder With Crowder show at 5:16. The only source of all of his information was FBI subversion personally, or FBI subversion through the media.

To be completely frank: this how the FBI manufactures terrorists. The wormtounging people with infiltrators, creating slanted "expert" information, and drip-feeding propaganda that feeds into a pre-existing meta-narrative. All to follow a carefully scripted series of events that leads to their final attack. They did the same shit with the Governor Whitmer """Assassination""", they did the same thing on January 6th, this shit is not new.

You all should memorize these strategies so that when you see them again out in the wild, you'll be able to call it out, and definitely not fall for it, and keep your friends and family away from it as well.