Former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake just suffered what should be her final defeat in fighting the outcome of the 2022 election.
Lake followed the Trump model of suing to win, but, like Trump, she failed.
Lake was just handed a defeat in the last lawsuit standing, with Maricopa County Superior Judge Peter Thompson tossing the suit on the basis that her team did not offer “clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of evidence” of wrongdoing in the election, reports the Daily Caller.
What?
Lake surely thought she had found something after the Arizona Supreme Court gave her case the thumbs up to proceed.
The higher court ruled that the lower court had mistakenly dismissed her suit based on the verification process of signature.
At the time, Lake had stated, “The process of verifying these signatures is the only security measure on mail-in ballots. The amount of time allotted to check these signatures was only 8 seconds, which is not humanly possible.”
Lake’s attorneys tried to make the case that screeners had noted the inconsistencies in the signatures, then sent them up the chain of command.
Higher-lever verifiers dismissed the concerns.
Lake had to prove that not only was there a problem with the signatures, but she was also tasked with finding enough ballots that would have impacted the race. Having lost by about 17,000, it was a tough task.
Judge Thompson stated, “The evidence the Court received does not support Plaintiff’s remaining claim,” reports CBS News.
Thompson added, “This Court’s duty is not solely to incline an ear to public outcry. It is to subject Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ actions to the light of the courtroom and scrutiny of the law.”
I said this during Trump’s protests if you recall… in order to win one of these cases, you have to have overwhelming evidence, as there is not a judge in this country that will want to overturn an election unless they have absolute proof, especially in the case of fraud allegations.
The first of these cases that has an outcome in favor of the plaintiff will kick open a door judges do not want opened, so they will resist it at all costs, hence the idea of proving there had to be enough fraud to impact the outcome, not just fraud.
