Maricopa County 2022 Corruption and How Runbeck Used Spanish-Speaking Employees and Quit Running Cou

[Free Vulcan]

The Kari Lake lawsuit was against the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the County Recorder. Both are Republican controlled bodies with 5 of the 6 people registered as Republicans. The Kari Lake legal team had 2 exceptional attorney’s, a 3rd behind the scenes, and a few researchers. Maricopa had a cabal of 20 lawyers and their support staff. This included teams from Perkins Coie and the Elias Law Group, both out of D.C. These Republican elected officials solicited legal help from the most notorious DNC hit squads. It’s their best chance to hide the election malfeasance. There’s no longer any doubt which team these officials are on. They hired the DNC’s den of thieves?

The Lake Team stayed in a Phoenix hotel, using a conference room as central command. They noticed the many attorneys helping Maricopa because Perkins Coie had also taken a conference room, in the same hotel. The Lake Team monitored MCTEC tabulation center cameras to keep an eye on ballots. They noticed one feed which showed a 3 hour nighttime meeting between Election Director Scott Jarrett and lawyers. GP reported on this. Jarrett was obviously coached because his testimony changed the next day at trial. Let’s review other chicanery by the judge and this legal scum representing Maricopa.

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson did not afford Kari Lake a traditional trial. He put them on a clock. He gave both the Plaintiff and Defendants 5.5 hours each to present their case. That’s only 330 minutes. But Thompson oddly allowed any “objections” by opposing counsel to count against your own time. The Maricopa DNC legal team used this gift as part of their strategy. They fought against numerous exhibits and witness questions by the Lake Team. They objected repeatedly using relevance, speculation, standing, foundation, strike statements, and so on. Maricopa had an attorney in the courtroom as a dedicated timekeeper, using a stop watch. At the end of Day One, the Lake Team used 272 minutes and Maricopa only 87.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/must-read-maricopa-county-2022-corruption-runbeck-used-spanish-speaking-employees-quit-running-counts-election-day-ballots/

[Bigun]

Years ago, when "draining the swamp" first came into use, I warned everyone that it was an easy thing to say but actually getting it done would be exceedingly difficult.  Thus far I've seen nothing but confirmations of that.

[Smokin Joe]

Years ago, when "draining the swamp" first came into use, I warned everyone that it was an easy thing to say but actually getting it done would be exceedingly difficult.  Thus far I've seen nothing but confirmations of that.

Yet more confirmation of perfidy within the GOP.

The Party seems lousy with it.

[HikerGuy83]

The Kari Lake lawsuit was against the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the County Recorder. Both are Republican controlled bodies with 5 of the 6 people registered as Republicans. The Kari Lake legal team had 2 exceptional attorney’s, a 3rd behind the scenes, and a few researchers. Maricopa had a cabal of 20 lawyers and their support staff. This included teams from Perkins Coie and the Elias Law Group, both out of D.C. These Republican elected officials solicited legal help from the most notorious DNC hit squads. It’s their best chance to hide the election malfeasance. There’s no longer any doubt which team these officials are on. They hired the DNC’s den of thieves?

The Lake Team stayed in a Phoenix hotel, using a conference room as central command. They noticed the many attorneys helping Maricopa because Perkins Coie had also taken a conference room, in the same hotel. The Lake Team monitored MCTEC tabulation center cameras to keep an eye on ballots. They noticed one feed which showed a 3 hour nighttime meeting between Election Director Scott Jarrett and lawyers. GP reported on this. Jarrett was obviously coached because his testimony changed the next day at trial. Let’s review other chicanery by the judge and this legal scum representing Maricopa.

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson did not afford Kari Lake a traditional trial. He put them on a clock. He gave both the Plaintiff and Defendants 5.5 hours each to present their case. That’s only 330 minutes. But Thompson oddly allowed any “objections” by opposing counsel to count against your own time. The Maricopa DNC legal team used this gift as part of their strategy. They fought against numerous exhibits and witness questions by the Lake Team. They objected repeatedly using relevance, speculation, standing, foundation, strike statements, and so on. Maricopa had an attorney in the courtroom as a dedicated timekeeper, using a stop watch. At the end of Day One, the Lake Team used 272 minutes and Maricopa only 87.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/must-read-maricopa-county-2022-corruption-runbeck-used-spanish-speaking-employees-quit-running-counts-election-day-ballots/

Well, Hello......

The mainstream GOP didn't and does not like Lake.  They don't like her, they don't like Trump and they don't like the gunslinger attitude they bring.

I hope this isn't news to anyone who wonders why morons like Richer (a so-called Repblican) are shoving it to us.

[HikerGuy83]

Yet more confirmation of perfidy within the GOP.

The Party seems lousy with it.

I am not sure that perfidy is the problem.

You CAN count on certain parts of the GOP to be anti-change.

That is the problem I have with the idea of "conservative" as it is traditionally used.

Lake and Co. are not conservatives in that they want to preserve the failed policies and attitudes of folks like McStain. 

They want CHANGE.  They want the party to actually behave like the conservatives the Russel Kirk and Bill Buckley described.

That some don't isn't an issue. 

What they will do to achieve their ends is simply being obstuctionist.

The Lake faction of the party has got to figure out how to message this better.

[Bigun]

I am not sure that perfidy is the problem.

You CAN count on certain parts of the GOP to be anti-change.

That is the problem I have with the idea of "conservative" as it is traditionally used.

Lake and Co. are not conservatives in that they want to preserve the failed policies and attitudes of folks like McStain. 

They want CHANGE.  They want the party to actually behave like the conservatives the Russel Kirk and Bill Buckley described.

That some don't isn't an issue. 

What they will do to achieve their ends is simply being obstuctionist.

The Lake faction of the party has got to figure out how to message this better.

There isn't anything wrong with the Lake faction messaging. The problem is getting the messaging through the media filter!

[roamer_1]

There isn't anything wrong with the Lake faction messaging. The problem is getting the messaging through the media filter!

...And backed and financed without the GOP machine... 

[HikerGuy83]

There isn't anything wrong with the Lake faction messaging. The problem is getting the messaging through the media filter!

If there is a "problem", then there is an issue with the messaging.

We have to do better.

I said nothing about her message.  And in fact, I've been very impressed (and said as much) with her command of the issues and her presentation (as opposed to Hobbs who comes across as a blithering idiot). 

Messaging is the process of getting it out there. 

They (we) have to do better.

[HikerGuy83]

...And backed and financed without the GOP machine... 

Yes, that is part of the problem with the messaging.

Putting it into the hands of the "managers" who will not treat it properly (unless it totally agrees with their agenda.

[Free Vulcan]

Yes, that is part of the problem with the messaging.

Putting it into the hands of the "managers" who will not treat it properly (unless it totally agrees with their agenda.

And that takes money.

[Hoodat]

Years ago, when "draining the swamp" first came into use, I warned everyone that it was an easy thing to say but actually getting it done would be exceedingly difficult.

The first thing needed is a President who is committed to draining the Swamp, not one who commits himself to marrying it.

[roamer_1]

The first thing needed is a President who is committed to draining the Swamp, not one who commits himself to marrying it.

Well no... The first thing would be a political machine dedicated to the cause of draining the swamp. And then a large number of state and fed senators and reps being within that camp... The president or governors might be a nice addition, but foremost, a congress, jealous of its powers, and mindful of fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, and constitutional originalism.

It could be done entirely without a president, considering enough members willing to override a veto... But a president can do little without a participating congress.

[Hoodat]

The President can do a lot without Congress.  He can fire at will.  And he can block spending.  He is the one who cashes the check.  Congress fills the account.

[HikerGuy83]

And that takes money.

Yes it does.

But money isn't all that is necessary.

[HikerGuy83]

Well no... The first thing would be a political machine dedicated to the cause of draining the swamp. And then a large number of state and fed senators and reps being within that camp... The president or governors might be a nice addition, but foremost, a congress, jealous of its powers, and mindful of fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, and constitutional originalism.

It could be done entirely without a president, considering enough members willing to override a veto... But a president can do little without a participating congress.

This one left the park and is still sailing beyond the parking lot.

Good post !!!!

[Free Vulcan]

Yes it does.

But money isn't all that is necessary.

Back when I was running campaigns I had a number of excellent candidates. Reality is you can only raise so much money in your district, it takes alot more help from outside to get the numbers to at least match your opponents ability to message and get name recognition, especially if it's an incumbent.

We never got that support, or got it too late. The Dems swamped us with media. Even though we didn't lose by much, it was a Republican enough district we should have won.

It was the money that made the difference.

[HikerGuy83]

Back when I was running campaigns I had a number of excellent candidates. Reality is you can only raise so much money in your district, it takes alot more help from outside to get the numbers to at least match your opponents ability to message and get name recognition, especially if it's an incumbent.

We never got that support, or got it too late. The Dems swamped us with media. Even though we didn't lose by much, it was a Republican enough district we should have won.

It was the money that made the difference.

And your experience is valuable in that you can show that if you don't have enough, it is an issue.

But there are examples where more doesn't mean much.

Who decides what that is I don't know.

And so, a couple of points:

1. Masters can't claim Mitch could have gotten him over the finish line.  Nobody knows that.
2. What we know is that Kelly spnt a HUGE sum of money and it didn't change things much.
3. Masters spent more than the "average" winning candidate did.  THere wasn't a "no spend" as  has been shown.
4.

[roamer_1]

And your experience is valuable in that you can show that if you don't have enough, it is an issue.

But there are examples where more doesn't mean much.

Who decides what that is I don't know.

And so, a couple of points:

1. Masters can't claim Mitch could have gotten him over the finish line.  Nobody knows that.
2. What we know is that Kelly spnt a HUGE sum of money and it didn't change things much.
3. Masters spent more than the "average" winning candidate did.  THere wasn't a "no spend" as  has been shown.
4.

Almost true. But I would propose that it really doesn't matter how much you've spent if your funding drops out the bottom in the last few weeks. The real time that coverage and funding is dire.

[HikerGuy83]

Back when I was running campaigns I had a number of excellent candidates. Reality is you can only raise so much money in your district, it takes alot more help from outside to get the numbers to at least match your opponents ability to message and get name recognition, especially if it's an incumbent.

We never got that support, or got it too late. The Dems swamped us with media. Even though we didn't lose by much, it was a Republican enough district we should have won.

It was the money that made the difference.

I thought I would mention that in Johnson County, Kansas there was  great deal of money brought in from the outside by democrats into certain key races. 

The GOP prevailed, but it was closer than it should have been.

Still, the dems were outspending in some cases 10 to 1.  But still lost.

I am really not sure what we are arguing here. 

I say.....

Money is important, but it is no guarantee.

Money has it's limits.

Money can't compensate for a candidate who isn't good or who does not have a good message.

That, to me, seems obvious.

[Free Vulcan]

I thought I would mention that in Johnson County, Kansas there was  great deal of money brought in from the outside by democrats into certain key races. 

The GOP prevailed, but it was closer than it should have been.

Still, the dems were outspending in some cases 10 to 1.  But still lost.

I am really not sure what we are arguing here. 

I say.....

Money is important, but it is no guarantee.

Money has it's limits.

Money can't compensate for a candidate who isn't good or who does not have a good message.

That, to me, seems obvious.

You are actually making my case. The Dems were able to spend and significantly move the needle....in really red Kansas.

Imagine what they could do in a more purple swing area.

Most of the Rat candidates we ran against here were mediocre to pathetic. That didn't matter because most people don't meet the candidate, their entire perception is based on media...which takes money...and we always got outspent by quite a bit.

The thing you don't understand about money is that no, it won't necessarily win you the race. But if you don't keep pace with your opponent, you will most likely lose unless the demographics completely favor your party. It's proportional.

In local races with smaller geography it is possible to be on a shoestring budget but outwork them. Anything larger than a county or two and that gets impractical very fast, and money is about the only thing that will make up that gap.

[Bigun]

You are actually making my case. The Dems were able to spend and significantly move the needle....in really red Kansas.

Imagine what they could do in a more purple swing area.

Most of the Rat candidates we ran against here were mediocre to pathetic. That didn't matter because most people don't meet the candidate, their entire perception is based on media...which takes money...and we always got outspent by quite a bit.

The thing you don't understand about money is that no, it won't necessarily win you the race. But if you don't keep pace with your opponent, you will most likely lose unless the demographics completely favor your party. It's proportional.

In local races with smaller geography it is possible to be on a shoestring budget but outwork them. Anything larger than a county or two and that gets impractical very fast, and money is about the only thing that will make up that gap.

Even more of a problem is the FACT that they do this with money siphoned out of the public treasury with the blessing of many "republicans".

[Free Vulcan]

Even more of a problem is the FACT that they do this with money siphoned out of the public treasury with the blessing of many "republicans".

Damn straight. They keep trying to say it's the '$5 donations' but that's crap. Every living person in the US sent $5 to the Rats, it would be only a fraction of what they spent.

It's laundered money, you know it and I know it.

[HikerGuy83]

You are actually making my case. The Dems were able to spend and significantly move the needle....in really red Kansas.

Imagine what they could do in a more purple swing area.

Most of the Rat candidates we ran against here were mediocre to pathetic. That didn't matter because most people don't meet the candidate, their entire perception is based on media...which takes money...and we always got outspent by quite a bit.

The thing you don't understand about money is that no, it won't necessarily win you the race. But if you don't keep pace with your opponent, you will most likely lose unless the demographics completely favor your party. It's proportional.

In local races with smaller geography it is possible to be on a shoestring budget but outwork them. Anything larger than a county or two and that gets impractical very fast, and money is about the only thing that will make up that gap.

I agree with most of your case.

As I said, not sure what the argument is.

I've made my points with regards to Masters. 

Masters wasn't a great candidate.

Now, I am asking who the GOP has to run in 2024.  If we are not focused on that, we'll lose again.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree with most of your case.

As I said, not sure what the argument is.

I've made my points with regards to Masters. 

Masters wasn't a great candidate.

Now, I am asking who the GOP has to run in 2024.  If we are not focused on that, we'll lose again.

You and I will always disagree about Masters, but all you looked at were liberal publications to make up your mind.

[HikerGuy83]

You and I will always disagree about Masters.

So what ?

but all you looked at were liberal publications to make up your mind.

Actually, I looked at Masters.

Your comments about what I read and how I process it are as useless as they are wrong.