Fogbow

Gregg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 6:15 pm If the story is true, and 'if is doing all the work there, I am full on convinced the offer came from some Republicans to get her to STFU.

Maybe the plan is to dump Hannity, slide Tucker down and hour and give her the 8-9 slot?

Laura Ingraham is the loser of the trio, she's a truly nasty piece of gay-outing, lying hate. Kari would be at 10pm. And you might have nailed it -- a multiyear Fox News deal would be millions and take her out of the running for any elected position.

Cross posting.

Kari Lake hits Desantis: “The people of FL just re-elected him. I’m assuming when they re-elected him they were hoping he’d stay around a while .. We haven’t seen Ron Desantis on the world stage yet, and some of the people surrounding him are the type of people pushing for war.”

Well, that certainly establishes her credibility as far as who has been impressive on the world stage.

On the world stage, she's "that nutjob loser in Arizona who won't admit she lost".

Which is a very impressive position to hold, on the world stage.

As a Floridian, I am all for DeSantis getting out there on the national/world stage. The more time he spends there the less time he has to knee-cap Florida. PLUS, the nation/world will get to see him for what he is.

A connected friend ran into Lake in DC at the Capitol over the weekend. For whatever that is worth.

Kari Lake @KariLake wrote: It's clear that the Democrats don't care about quality candidates.

That's why they saddle the American people with clowns like Basement Joe and Cackling Kamala.

Kari Lake @KariLake wrote:
It's clear that the Democrats don't care about quality candidates.

That's why they saddle the American people with clowns like Basement Joe and Cackling Kamala.

Funny enough, the American people responded, loudly, at their approval. Lake, not so much.

Even Democrats want to vote for Lake, she and tfg are going to unite the country and bring peace to the world.

Kari Lake War Room @KariLakeWarRoom wrote: .@KariLake: "We're going to move forward. We're going to elect @realDonaldTrump. We're going to bring some peace to the world again, and start rebuilding, and Making America Great Again."

She’s starting to remind me of Vivienne Rook from Years And Years. That’s not a good thing.

Kari Lake @KariLake wrote: It was a huge mistake to steal the election from us and an even bigger mistake to think we’d just roll over and accept it.

Our Movement is growing bigger & bigger by the day. If you’re a fed-up American, we welcome you with open arms. Let’s take our country back.

Ex-Lax will help with that.

... huge ... bigger ... bigger & bigger ...

Who says size doesn't matter?

I believe the deadline for the appelllees to file any reply to Lake's petition to the AZSC is today. Governor Hobbs, Secretary of State Fontes, and Maricopa County all filed notices that they intend to respond.

(Edited)

Cool.

The replies should be worth reading. Lake's petition pretty much said the judges on the CoA don't give a flying f--k about the law.

Do her lawyers realize that the CoA opinion was written by the Chief Justice of the first division?

Do they care?

The lawsuits are just a prop in the larger grift and performance art production.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:02 pm Even Democrats want to vote for Lake, she and tfg are going to unite the country and bring peace to the world.
https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/sta ... 5878298626

Kari Lake War Room @KariLakeWarRoom wrote: .@KariLake: "We're going to move forward. We're going to elect @realDonaldTrump. We're going to bring some peace to the world again, and start rebuilding, and Making America Great Again."

Except "The World" will not be listening to a looser. How many state visits did the former impotus actually make to connect to the nations he wishes to command around

AZ Law blog has the replies that were filed yesterday.

https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2023/0 ... argue.html

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:04 pm AZ Law blog has the replies that were filed yesterday.

https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2023/0 ... argue.html

Thanks.

IANAL, but this sentence from Hobbs's legal team bugs me

"This Court should reject Lake’s request to grant review of her election contest based on new and baseless facts."

They could have stated that better.

I'm glad that they all asked for sanctions. That was the one part of the superior court decision that I had issues with.

The Hobbs response is the least well-written, both in focus and language use. It makes the points, but in snooze-worthy fashion. The opening para includes the only flame-throwing, and that is pretty tame:

On January 2, 2023, Katie Hobbs was sworn in as Governor of Arizona after winning a majority of votes cast in the 2022 gubernatorial election. For the past five months, Kari Lake has attempted unsuccessfully to use Arizona’s judiciary to undermine the results of that election. Enough is enough.

The Sec of State response is better written, and the most thorough, with a slightly more fiery opening:

This case involves Kari Lake’s attempt to malign and undermine our election processes and those who administer them, sow deep-rooted distrust for our democracy, and unseat Katie Hobbs, who is our duly elected Governor. Ms. Lake continues to attest that the 2022 election was stolen, which is ironic, since it is she who seeks to steal the election and usurp the People’s will through judicial fiat

The SoS uses some nice nuance to explore exactly how stupid Lake's petition is--without calling it stupid. But in the end it is the type of legal writing that uses gentle chastisement to form its supposed zingers:

It is important to remember that “frivolous appeals waste the time and energy of the opposing parties and the resources of this court,” and even if an appeal was not brought for an improper purpose, it can be “nonetheless frivolous for its failure to raise any reasonable issue regarding a meritorious claim.

Both of the above have a lot to say about sanctions (as they should, IM-IANAL-O).

But of course, the Maricopa County response (which I fondly imagine to reflect the approach and perhaps the words of MC Reporter Stephen I-Saw-Him-First Richter, who is one of the three defendants) is the best: Short, angry, and devastatingly to-the-point. Of they three this is the only response that bluntly describes the perfidy of Lake's lies about the existing record in the case, without any gentle language. The opening:

Petitioner Kari Lake’s Petition for Review entirely fails to present reasons to grant review and further fails to conform with the Rules governing the purpose of a petition for review. More alarmingly, it also presents—for the first time—a misleading factual theory about chain-of-custody document

This response starts by explaining that the petition does not attempt to meet the requirements of such petitions, without a mass of citations (sorry, but it matters, IMO). Once that is clearly set up, the snappy take-downs that follow are in crystal clear context. Oooh la la!

Here, Lake’s Petition utterly fails at fulfilling its limited task. It does not present any argument illustrating a need for this Court to review the court of appeals’ Opinion. It does not identify a single novel legal issue that this Court needs to clarify. And it does not identify any legal precedent that should be overturned or abrogated. Instead, the Petition is almost entirely a regurgitation of Petitioner Kari Lake’s failed arguments before the trial court and the court of appeals.

The only aspect of the Petition that differs from Lake’s briefing below is the inclusion of a newly-fabricated characterization of chain-of-custody documents presented for the first time in the Petition. But a petition for review is not the place for Lake to argue that the trial court’s findings of fact were incorrect, nor that the court of appeals improperly accepted the facts that the trial court found. Moreover, it is not the place to assert an entirely new factual theory that was never raised below. And it is most decidedly not the place to misrepresent the record and the testimony of trial witnesses.

Then they give the deets. Boom Boom Boom.

Thanks for the highlights!

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:27 pm The Hobbs response is the least well-written, both in focus and language use. It makes the points, but in snooze-worthy fashion. The opening para includes the only flame-throwing, and that is pretty tame:

Then they give the deets. Boom Boom Boom.

Thanks for the summaries! I started reading them last night but moved on to something more exciting like auto repair YouTube videos.