Thread by @tracybeanz

THREAD: I am going to give you my assessment of the trial today, because it was really something to behold. The Lake team did an absolutely PHENOMENAL job, as did the expert witnesses.

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1605724352447553537

In the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the judge took time to schedule these hearings, and heard from both the Plaintiff and the defense on time. Plaintiff asked for 3 days of trial. The judge granted two, and kept it that way because he dismissed 8 of the 10 counts.

Understand that keeping time the way they did today is common practice. Each side gets a certain allotment of time they can use. The judge wants at least 5 days to come to a decision, hence the two day limit.

For those of you who discounted this judge as biased, he was certainly VERY fair today, and I appreciated that, because there were a number of opportunities that he could have been VERY hard on both sides, but didn’t go that direction.

The Lake team has to prove both INTENT and that it would’ve changed the outcome, and they have to do that in either one (or both) of two circumstances.

1. Chain of Custody failure.
2. Printer/Tabulator malfunction.

I went into this thinking the hurdles were massive.

I expected it would be easier for them to argue Chain of Custody issues than intentionality on printers/tabulators. I was wrong. The expert witness for the Plaintiffs, Chris Parikh, was OUTSTANDING, We joked on our livestream that it was like Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny…

…but Parikh is MUCH more brilliant than Tomei’s pinky fingernail (no offense to Tomei.) He is so highly credentialed, and worked at such high levels of government, that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to impeach him as an expert… But they tried. And failed miserably.

Before the trial, the Defendants tried to have BOTH of Plaintiffs expert witnesses struck from testifying. The judge wasn’t having it. Earlier in the day before Parikh took the stand, they had almost BADGERED the second witness (name is escaping me) who was responsible for…

…all things ballots and configuration etc if there was any way a 19” ballot could be printed on Election Day, and OVER and OVER again he testified it was impossible. Then on cross, he testified it was impossible again; that there was no way it could happen because they didn’t..

…design a 19” ballot, and none existed on any server or anywhere. I thought it interesting they’d spend so much time, UNTIL we learned that Parikh got to inspect ballots yesterday, and don’t ya know it! 14 of the 15 ballots he took a look at (doing this from memory)..

…were 19” ballots on 20” paper. Long story short, on cross, the defense tried to pin him down on someone accidentally (or intentionally- their words, not his) hitting the “fit to print” button on the printer before printing the ballot, and causing the problem. Without getting…

…into too much detail about it all, basically the end result was that he testified under oath (amongst other things) that it HAD to have been intentional and why, and explained that if they hit “fit to print” because the ballot was designed to be 20”, the image would have…

…printed NORMALLY, not 19”. There were a lot of other times where the defense really stepped in it during the other witnesses expert testimony as well, Ms. Honey. She testified to COS issues, like, oh, I dunno, the fact that THERE WAS NONE, and no matter how badly they tried

…to corner her and get her to say she had no “direct evidence” of someone INTENTIONALLY breaking COS, she wouldn’t do it, because CLEARLY someone had to make the decision not to fill out COS forms for EVERY DROP BOX ballot on Election Day, and so obviously that was intentional.

She also testified that Runbeck employees had added ballots to the totals AT THE RUNBECK FACILITY, not a legal voting location, and the defense chose to argue that it was “legal” to ballot harvest. She stopped that very quickly when she clarified the law for the attorney, was…

…correct, and all of a sudden they had “no more questions.” There was a lot more to come from her as well, these are just some highlights top of mind. I am doing this from memory so if little minor details are incorrect, don’t kill the messenger.

They also got an attorney for the RNC on the stand to testify about the horrible wait times and issues at the vote centers, and he testified that Maricopa County INTENTIONALLY LIED to the AG when they returned their report in response to questions asked about day of voting.

Through his testimony he was able to explain what the real issues were at voting locations throughout the county, in direct contradiction to the report— the report was SO far off he said, that there is no way it wasn’t intentionally done as a cover up.

None of these witnesses could be impeached on cross. They didn’t even come CLOSE and often stuck their foot in their mouth. They made it worse for themselves a lot of the time. There was more, but before I get into it just a few things I picked up on to look out for.

They spent a LOT of time questioning the second witness about a “prep report” he wrote to prepare Maricopa for the election. It was a good 20-30 minutes of questioning on the historical data on turnout, how it is used to prep for elections, even got the witness to brag about..

…how close they came to turnout numbers— how accurate they were. Thing is, they spent a good amount of time during the hearing on the motion to dismiss trying to discount expert witness @Peoples_Pundit because he used HISTORICAL DATA to make his determinations about elections..

They argued it wasn’t scientific, it wouldn’t be credible, etc…

So now, they have this high level Maricopa supervisor spending a half hour gloating about how accurate their historical data is, and how they use it to base their PLANNING on, and how great they are at it…..

And so obviously, they wont be able to get Baris on “historical data” being inaccurate, because Maricopa county literally uses it to plan all of their elections!!! I thought it was interesting when Plaintiffs entered a DEFENSE exhibit as their own evidence. BRILLIANT MOVE.

So a quick bit about this before I move on to some of the NEGATIVE things, because obviously I would be ridiculous if I didn’t present those to you, and there were some negatives. They dont have much time left, and they still have Baris as an expert witness.

They are going to have to REALLY be to the point and sharp on him, otherwise, they will run out of time and not be able to cross examine the Defense 3-4 witnesses. How bad would that be? Pretty bad. The judge was VERY accommodating and said that around 20 minutes for closing…

…arguments would be good, and the Plaintiffs said they would only need 15. The judge told them if they use 15 and the defense uses 20, they could have 5 to rebut the defenses close. Really nice of the judge, completely unnecessary.

Now to some of the bad. Time management; they spent WAY TOO MUCH time IMO trying to pin down that second Maricopa witness (whose name escapes me, I am fried) on whether he believed the election in Maricopa was chaotic or had issues. He refused to submit that there were issues.

He refused to agree there were long wait times. It was obvious he was talking out of his ass, but they spent a TON of time there.

EXHIBITS: There was a numbering error, and the exhibits were all funky. I am not sure what happened there, but it was really unprofessional looking

When we came back from lunch break, the Plaintiffs tried to call a witness that was withdrawn from the witness list. Just a really bad look. That ate up time. You want your witnesses in order and sometimes that changes, but it led to some fluster as they tried to get another..

..ready. It may have worked out in the end, because it was supposed to have been the t-tech if it wasn’t the one they withdrew, and he wasn’t ready, so it ended up being Ms. Honey which I think ended up working out in the end. They wanted to enter hearsay evidence via..

…Ms. Honey in the form of a voice mail that she had received from someone saying they worked for Maricopa in regards to a records request. The defense ended up getting it barred but the judge still heard it, which sometimes is all you need.

However, co-counsel to Olsen was extremely heated and somewhat argumentative during this long exchange, and it just left a bad taste in some folks mouths. He and the judge sparred on a few occasions when the judge seemingly was going to rule in favor of Plaintiffs on objections.

(BTW: That second witness was Jarrett. I just remembered.. SORRY!)

There was also another moment when the Defense was cross examining a witness about signatures, and he stepped on his own tail with “injecting” ballots or something to that effect, where the same counsel I just mentioned was an absolute ROCK STAR. Even the judges face was…

…amused; like the judge couldn’t believe what Liddy (Maricopa attorney) had just done. This is one I want to find a clip of, because you can see the judge and he even chuckles a bit and corners the defense..Remember, he is the jury.

Another negative, IMO, was the T-tech witness. I thought his testimony did a bit more harm than good, especially when it came to his testimony about the printers. He was a relatively fast witness, and if you want my honest opinion, I think they only had him up there to be able…

…to get his text messages into evidence. They were able to introduce the Runbeck whistleblower via Honey, and they did this a number of other times, even getting HUNDREDS of affidavits admitted into evidence against the defense objections. It was a very crafty bit of work.

I know this was supposed to be negatives, but this is a free form thread tonight, cut a girl some slack

All in all, the Plaintiffs got THREE WITNESSES, UNDER OATH, IN COURT, to testify that the issues that happened in the 2022 gubernatorial election were done with INTENTIONALITY. Literally ignore the MSM reporting on this. I have read several and imagine my shock!!

NONE OF THEM reported what happened in that courtroom today honestly. NONE. But guess what? That doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judge saw, and what he saw was a highly skilled and credentialed expert testify that 19” ballots printed on 20” paper, something they…

…ONLY KNEW because the judge ordered the ballot inspection, and that the ONLY WAY IT WAS TECHNICALLY possible for that to happen was if someone did it on purpose. That wins the case, right there. I said a month or so ago before you could see it the below.

This, in essence, is what Parikh testified to today. These witnesses were stellar, the Plaintiff did an ABSOLUTELY phenomenal job, we still have one more witness tomorrow, and holy hell, if this judge honestly rules on this… dare I say… we may get justice for once? I just…

I just lost all the rest of the tweets at the end. LoL. You get the point. To watch the coverage: rumble.com/v21qwe4-watch-…

I highly recommend you do. It’s still processing, so you’ll come in about half way through. Audio from feed isn’t great. We work with what we have.