Patrick Byrne Responds to Kari Lake’s Temporary Setback…

Via Patrick Byrne:

This one lays it all bare, folks.

In Maricopa on Election Day this year, in numerous polling locations across Maricopa, the print-on-demand printers were printing on the correct 20″ ballot paper, but taking the 20″ ballot image and shrinking it down to 19″ before printing. The difference is imperceptible to the human eye. However, when fed into a tabulator, the difference causes the ballot to be rejected, which lets the poll workers innocently and honestly say, “Something has gone wrong, the tabulators do not seem to be reading your ballot, just leave it in Drawer #3.”

Kari Lake was given minimal access to materials to make her case. But among the things she was granted was the right to inspect 150 ballots. She was provided 113 ballots (not 150), from Polling Locations A, B, C, D, E, and F (let me call them). Of the 113 ballots, 48 of them had the 19″ misprint. That is 42.5%.

On Day #1 of the trial, Maricopa was surprised with this. They did not know that we know (but we have spent two years sussing out their tricks). The Maricopa Election Goon testified that it did not happen and it could not happen.

That evening, he and the Maricopa attorneys got together in MTEC (we know all this from friendly insiders) and discussed what to do. They (illeglly?) took the 113 ballots that had been Kari Lake’s sample, examined them, and came up with a story.

On Day #2 of the trial, the Maricopa Goon had a new story. The day before he denied knowing about this and said it was impossible, but on Day #2, he said that yes he knew all about it. The anomaly had in fact occurred in Polling Locations A, B, and C. It had happened there the last three elections. Maricopa discovered it on November 9 of this year and began a “root cause analysis” (the judge nodded at the official-sounding language).

In his decision, the judge overlooked the preposterousness: the previous day the Maricopa Goon knew nothing about it, the next day he knows about it all in great detail, HAS known about it all, and in fact has been on top of it since November 11, but no note, emaail, or letter can support that. The judge not only overlooked the inconsistencies between the two days of testimony, he overlooked that the fake explanation has the anomaly occurring in A, B, and C only, when in fact Kari’s experts had gotten their samples from six polling locations (ABCDEF), and found it in all six.

Fortunately, Kari Lake was able to get into the record in both cross-examination and summary these inconsistencies with the facts at hand. They will be part of the appeal, both to AZ Supreme Court and (if necessary) into the US federal judiciary.