Kari Lake is a deceitful fraud. Now she'll have to defend her lies in court

[Bob Juch]

Ever since her clear and unequivocal loss in the race for Arizona governor, Kari Lake has traveled the country posing and strutting like a conquering hero.

As a candidate, the former Fox TV anchorwoman was all in on former President Trump and his Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Her brazen duplicity is probably what cost Lake the gubernatorial contest in November.

But in characteristic fashion, she's refused to acknowledge defeat, filing a lawsuit — since thrown out of court — and widely peddling false claims about voter fraud and other conspiratorial flimflam.

Her actions are both amoral and unoriginal. Once Lake read from a TelePrompTer; now she parrots Trump.

Happily, she lost her election bid.

Now, she may face legal repercussions.

Last week, a top election official in Arizona, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, filed a defamation lawsuit against his fellow Republican, saying Lake's blatant lies have cost him friends and lifelong relationships. Her malicious incitement has also resulted in death threats, he said, and harassment aimed at him and his wife.

“Rather than accept political defeat, rather than get a new job, [Lake] has sought to undermine confidence in our elections and has mobilized millions of her followers against me,” Richer wrote in the Arizona Republic. "Her defamatory allegations have unleashed violent vitriol and other dire consequences."

(continued)

[Bob Juch]

Well, I get a Server Error trying to post the rest.

Read this: https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/column ... 37772.html

[Beebs52]

Sigh. WGAS

[tlynn78]

Sigh. WGAS

Gives 'em a tingle.

[BackInTex]

Well, I get a Server Error trying to post the rest.

Read this: https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/column ... 37772.html

Good. It forces you to actual indicate what you're posting is not your own words.

[Bob78164]

Sigh. WGAS

Actually, this matters. Just like the $787 million settlement against Fox, this lawsuit should demonstrate, if it goes the way I think it should, that you can't make damaging fact-free statements, knowing that they're false, without facing consequences for your lies. I view this as a salutary development. I wish it would happen more often. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Sigh. WGAS

Actually, this matters. Just like the $787 million settlement against Fox, this lawsuit should demonstrate, if it goes the way I think it should, that you can't make damaging fact-free statements, knowing that they're false, without facing consequences for your lies. I view this as a salutary development. I wish it would happen more often. --Bob

This has nothing to do with Dominion. Um, I'm gobsmacked

[flockofseagulls104]

Sigh. WGAS

Actually, this matters. Just like the $787 million settlement against Fox, this lawsuit should demonstrate, if it goes the way I think it should, that you can't make damaging fact-free statements, knowing that they're false, without facing consequences for your lies. I view this as a salutary development. I wish it would happen more often. --Bob

Wow, Donald Trump can sue just about anybody, then. Even you, bobby. Plenty of EV-I-DENCE right here on this bored.

BTW - Did Trump collude with the Russians, bobby?

[Bob Juch]

Sigh. WGAS

Arizonans

[Beebs52]

Sigh. WGAS

Arizonans

Nah. There are lotsa state weirdos that don't matter

[Bob78164]

Sigh. WGAS

Actually, this matters. Just like the $787 million settlement against Fox, this lawsuit should demonstrate, if it goes the way I think it should, that you can't make damaging fact-free statements, knowing that they're false, without facing consequences for your lies. I view this as a salutary development. I wish it would happen more often. --Bob

This has nothing to do with Dominion. Um, I'm gobsmacked

The specific lie may be different, but the phenomenon is the same. This lawsuit, if successful, should serve as a warning to other prominent politicians who might decide lying is the way to go. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Actually, this matters. Just like the $787 million settlement against Fox, this lawsuit should demonstrate, if it goes the way I think it should, that you can't make damaging fact-free statements, knowing that they're false, without facing consequences for your lies. I view this as a salutary development. I wish it would happen more often. --Bob

This has nothing to do with Dominion. Um, I'm gobsmacked

The specific lie may be different, but the phenomenon is the same. This lawsuit, if successful, should serve as a warning to other prominent politicians who might decide lying is the way to go. --Bob

Or um networks? WTF?

[BackInTex]

This has nothing to do with Dominion. Um, I'm gobsmacked

The specific lie may be different, but the phenomenon is the same. This lawsuit, if successful, should serve as a warning to other prominent politicians who might decide lying is the way to go. --Bob

Or um networks? WTF?

Adam Schiff?

[Bob78164]

The specific lie may be different, but the phenomenon is the same. This lawsuit, if successful, should serve as a warning to other prominent politicians who might decide lying is the way to go. --Bob

Or um networks? WTF?

Adam Shiff?

If you're referring to my current Representative, Adam Schiff, bring it on. You'll discover there's a reason no one is bringing any claims against him in court. He hasn't lied. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Or um networks? WTF?

Adam Shiff?

If you're referring to my current Representative, Adam Schiff, bring it on. You'll discover there's a reason no one is bringing any claims against him in court. He hasn't lied. --Bob

Lmao!
Oh, bless your heart. You might want to review Schiff's memo regarding the Carter Page Fisa warrant, for starters. But never mind. You know, we all know, that what you just said is as much a lie as Schiff's bullshit, and you simply do not care.

[Bob78164]

Adam Shiff?

If you're referring to my current Representative, Adam Schiff, bring it on. You'll discover there's a reason no one is bringing any claims against him in court. He hasn't lied. --Bob

Lmao!
Oh, bless your heart. You might want to review Schiff's memo regarding the Carter Page Fisa warrant, for starters. But never mind. You know, we all know, that what you just said is as much a lie as Schiff's bullshit, and you simply do not care.

Terry,

I will tolerate a lot of name calling. But being called a deliberate liar is not something I am prepared to tolerate. I suggest you rethink your language. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

If you're referring to my current Representative, Adam Schiff, bring it on. You'll discover there's a reason no one is bringing any claims against him in court. He hasn't lied. --Bob

Lmao!
Oh, bless your heart. You might want to review Schiff's memo regarding the Carter Page Fisa warrant, for starters. But never mind. You know, we all know, that what you just said is as much a lie as Schiff's bullshit, and you simply do not care.

Terry,

I will tolerate a lot of name calling. But being called a deliberate liar is not something I am prepared to tolerate. I suggest you rethink your language. --Bob

Uh oh. bobby is threatening to sue someone else on the bored? Is business slow this week?
bobby can call anyone else anything he wants, he can spout off any bullshit he wants, but don't call him a liar.

bobby, did trump collude with russia? C'mon, defend that lie that you bought into hook line and sinker. What exactly did Putin do to get Trump elected? Be specific. Show some evidence. Or spout another level of BS. Your choice.

And then tell me where I'm wrong about what Hillary, the swamp, and 51 intelligence 'experts' did to elect Biden. I have shown evidence for that. Plenty of it. Real election interference, with evidence. Wake up, bobby.

[silverscreenselect]

bobby, did trump collude with russia? C'mon, defend that lie that you bought into hook line and sinker. What exactly did Putin do to get Trump elected? Be specific. Show some evidence.

You keep bringing this up. Bob has his reasons for ignoring you but I don't want your nonsense to pass unrebutted. And not by me, and not by the "liberal media." But by a Republican Senate investigation during the Trump administration. The report runs 1,000 pages, but this article sums it up:

The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help.
The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections. The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a “hoax.” While Mueller’s was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn’t happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference.

Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee’s description of the professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the report says. The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is “some evidence” Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia’s effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says “two pieces of information” raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out. Both men were charged in Mueller’s investigation, but neither was accused of any tie to the hacking.

Like Mueller, the committee reviewed a meeting Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., took in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer he believed to have connections with the Russian government with the goal of receiving information harmful to Clinton. The Senate panel said it assessed that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has “significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services,” as did another participant in the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin. The panel said it uncovered connections that were “far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known,” particularly regarding Veselnitskaya. The report also found no reliable evidence for Trump’s longstanding supposition that Ukraine had interfered in the election, but did trace some of the earliest public messaging of that theory to Kilimnik and said it was spread by Russian-government proxies who sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference.

The committee said that messaging campaign lasted to “at least January 2020” — after the House had impeached Trump for pressuring Ukrainian officials to investigate the family of Democrat Joe Biden, now Trump’s general election opponent. During that effort, some Republicans, including Trump, argued Ukraine was meddling, not Russia. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as Mueller did and as the House intelligence committee’s 2018 report did, about whether there is sufficient evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

Several Republicans on the panel submitted “additional views” to the report, saying it should state more explicitly that Trump’s campaign did not coordinate with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government “inappropriately meddled” in the election, “then-candidate Trump was not complicit.” The panel’s acting GOP chairman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, signed on to that statement but the chairman who led the investigation, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, did not. Burr stepped aside earlier this year as the FBI was examining his stock sales. Burr, who submitted the report before he stepped aside, often faced criticism from his GOP colleagues for working with Democrats on the probe and for summoning sensitive witnesses, such as Trump Jr. Another Republican committee member, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, also did not sign on to the GOP statement.

Democrats submitted their own views, saying the report “unambiguously shows that members of the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected.” Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, did not sign on to that statement, saying he believed the report should be bipartisan. But he said in an interview that he believes the report is a “warning.” The report is “not a hoax,” King said. “It’s just one more set of facts that’s hard to ignore.”

Mueller concluded in his report issued last year that Russia interfered in the election through hacking and a covert social media campaign and that the Trump campaign embraced the help and expected to benefit from it. But Mueller did not charge any Trump associates with conspiring with Russians. The Senate investigation did find fault in aspects of the investigation, suggesting agents did not respond with sufficient urgency to the hacking of Democratic National Committee email servers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/s ... s-election

"Collusion" is not a crime anywhere in the federal criminal statutes. Trump himself stated at various times during his Presidency that collusion was not a crime. So to say that Trump did or did not collude with the Russians is legally meaningless. However, there are numerous references to "conspire" and "conspiracy." Conspiracy requires two or more persons to intentionally make an agreement to violate federal law and then commit an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

There was plenty of evidence that Mueller and the Senate panel found that Russians interfered in the 2016 election. And Trump himself openly asked Russia for help: "Russia, if you're listening..." What Mueller could never get proof of beyond a reasonable doubt was that an actual meeting of the minds occurred. That's not the same as yours and Trump's blanket statements that no collusion ever existed or that Mueller somehow "proved" that. And by the way, the letter from the 51 experts is not "interference" in the election. It's expressing an opinion, just as many other people do before every election. They no more interfered with the election than you did with your litany of misguided nonsense.

[Bob Juch]

Sigh. WGAS

Arizonans

Nah. There are lotsa state weirdos that don't matter

She's hoping to run as TFG's VP.