comment: >
  
  Great. Now lock her up.
context: Under Arizona law, "The records containing a voter's signature...shall not be accessible or reproduced by any person other than the voter."
  A violation of the law is a Class 6 felony that could carry jail time. 
  
  Seems pretty clear that Lake broke the law. And to put those signatures out on Twitter of all places is just asking for people to be doxxed >
  
  I do agree, but until someone decides to enforce that law, it's meaningless. >
  
  And you can be sure if one thing:
  She will not see an iota of consequences for this.
  Nothing. >
  
  FFS. This just happened. Can you let the process have half a chance to work before you decide it already has failed? >
  
  Poster is highly likely to be correct. >
  
  Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know. No one does. But this rush to always be the first one to claim the system is going to fail is getting really tiresome. >
  
  Look at the last 6-7 years. We kinda have enough history of these matters to know that she has at a minimum of 6 years for nothing bad to happen. >
  
  You don't know that. You believe that. There is a significant difference between those two. It would be really nice if you would learn that. 
  And there are so many things that are different between this case and so many of the others you've seen that using them to predetermine the outcome here is entirely misguided. 
  First, this is a state issue so it's different players. Second, this is a ex-anchorwoman not a powerful politician. Third, this is a pretty straight-forward case with clear evidence and an unambiguous, uncomplicated law. Fourth, many of the issues you think nothing will happen with are still moving forward. For example, we just heard about the developments in Georgia with the grand jury that experts believe show an indictment of Trump for tampering is extremely likely and not too far off. >
  
  Alright, I understand where you're coming from. Would you at least agree it will take more than 2 years? January 6th was way worse then this, and all the "voter fraud" stuff was on par. >
  
  No, I'm sorry but I am not going to make a guess about what will happen just to make you feel better. We'll know what will happen when it happens, not before. 
  But if two years from now nothing has happened, I will gladly agree nothing happened in two years. And I will be pissed about it then if that's how it ends up. >
  
  How does any decent human being still support Republicans? >
  
  They don't. >
  
  They see the racism, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the sexism, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the homophobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the transphobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the xenophobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the stripping of rights, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the outright Nazi support, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the vile vocal hatred, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They can say they are against one or more of those things for whatever reason they would like.  The fact remains, none of those things are deal breakers.  They are willing to overlook all of them for whatever gain they percieve.
  There is no such thing as a decent and good person that still votes for the Republican party.
  I know, I know..."My parents/grandparents/friends/spouse/sibling/cousin/roommate/ what-the-fuck-ever votes Republican and I think they are a good person!".
  No.  No they are not.  They support all of that by voting Republican.  You are blinded by your relationship with that person. >
  
  They might be good people, but those who are, are woefully and/or willfully dumb, which makes them dangerous which ultimately makes them bad people. >
  
  You can’t be a good person and Republican at the same time. Supporting that genocidal party is actually in direct contradiction to what a “good person” would do. >
  
  Yeah but some people are so ignorant and brainwashed from early childhood that they are unaware of the effects of pulling the lever for R or claiming to be R.  All they've heard all their life is R good, D bad and they're shielded from the bad stuff.  Dumb or ignorant doesn't mean bad (as in evil).  It's as much of a problem IMO, if not more, so it doesn't really absolve much. >
  
  I'm sorry, but ignorance of reality is not a valid defense.  You cannot live in the world, with all information at your fingertips, and continually make the decision to remain complicit in GQP nonsense and say, "oops, didn't know!"
  It's a choice.  There are no good people that claim republican alignment. >
  
  It's actually not a choice for many people.  It's only a choice when you're aware there is a choice, which isn't always the case.  
  The Republican leaders have been actively blocking out reality and creating a whole new one for people without exposure to anything else.  It's much easier to control in rural areas, for example, so while all that "information at your fingertips" is out there for many, it's not really for others, and people won't even know what to look for or what to do with it, even if it is in their faces.  That's why education in those areas is being targeted - to keep good people dumb.  
  A common theme of people who "make it out" of these places and go to college report that they can finally see what they had missed out on, and that's when they began to deprogram and change.  That means they are inherently good people, but were never exposed to information and reality beyond their noses until then.  People who are privy to reality as the world sees it and can't or refuse to change (willful ignorance is different from just being dumb or just plain ignorant) are the bad folks. >
  
  
  Lake's attorney responded that she had a First Amendment right to post the signatures. 
  
  Where do you find these lawyers? The absurdity of that claim is mind boggling. She could have tweeted anything she wanted to say about those signatures and that would have been protected by the First Amendment. >
  
  “The first amendment allows my client to commit felonies” >
  
  Her client committed felonies and remains free.
  So far, she’s not wrong. >
  
  This just happened. The tweet was from Jan 23 and the Secretary of State just asked the AG to investigate it. Isn't it a little premature to start acting like the system has failed? >
  
  Nope. Next question. >
  
  Okay. How do you expect to change things if all you do is dump on the system instead of support it having a chance to work? >
  
  She’s already guilty in the Court of Public Opinion, so why do we need a Court of Law? /s >
  
  Lock her up >
  
  Holy fuck, she posted voters signatures on bloody Twitter?   Wow >
  
  You sound surprised... >
  
  As someone who isn't an American...   Nothing surprises me about US politics anymore >
  
  Also, signature matching is a bullshit thing that frequently fails purely because people's signatures aren't nearly as consistent as you think. If you're a high ranking whatever who signs fifty documents a day, sure, yeah, it's probably going to be a pretty clear indicator, but I sign things like five times a month if I'm unlucky, and you're probably the same way. >
  
  And they don't have access to all your signatures either. It sounds like they only have yours from elections so they have very few to go off. >
  
  Well, elections and a few other select things. Government filings of varied documents, your license, etc.
  But even then you might be signing things years apart. >
  
  Hahaha she thought she was going to be Trumps’s Vice President. 
  She may still try. >
  
  I hope she is. She can't even win her home state. She has little to no national appeal. What does she bring to the ticket? >
  
  For the base?…angertainment.  Same as Desantis, MTG, Trump, etc.
  The (R)egressive party has no desire to govern.  All they want is a culture war flamed by convincing simple minds that they’re being wronged by non-existent boogey men and that the only way to take back what’s theirs is to hate dems and send R politicians more $$. >
  
  Right, I get that - when you don't have the facts or the law on your side, pound the table. I'm just saying that if Trump had competent political advisors, they'd find a VP candidate who can bring in the more moderate voters (if that's possible at this point). Trump's already got the angry white asshole vote - he doesn't need any help there. He needs a Mike Pence type for balance. >
  
  Wasn’t God supposed to make her win already? >
  
  Yes but unfortunately her god is Trump. His only real power is yelling(or tweeting) really LOUD! >
  
  I would argue his superpower now is pleading the 5th. >
  
  It would be nice if Republicans actually understood any right besides 2A. The right to free speech doesn’t give you the right to do and say whatever you want. >
  
  I'd be shocked if anything ever happened to her. Republicans seem to be able to violate any law and nothing ever happens. >
  
  That has made me lose some amount of confidence that we are indeed a nation of laws. I understand criminal cases against politicians have the added challenge of avoiding any real or perceived political bias. However if there is blatant evidence of a crime in the open press, there should be only one option in a nation of laws; pursuing charges. >
  
  As someone from Ohio who no longer lives there but follows the news, I would say you are spot on: we have problems everywhere but you are pretty much on the front line of the oxymoron of institutionalized lawlessness. >
  
  
  Lake's attorney responded that she had a First Amendment right to post the signatures. 
  
  That's like a doctor sharing PII about patients on Twitter then claiming 1st Amendment protection as if HIPAA isn't a thing >
  
  
  Eight of the voter signatures that Lake  posted were from early-ballot affidavits in the 2020 presidential election; 
  
  Of course some of the signatures were from 2020. 
  
  "Having signatures being promoted and presented online and other places actually does great harm to the potential integrity of the outcome of an election," Patrick said. “That's why these these laws are in place - to protect voters and protect the integrity of the elections”.
  
  I guess he didn’t get the memo that Republicans aren’t bound to any laws, just ask Garland. >
  
  Exactly. If I knew my neighbors signature, I could learn how to write it, and then vote in his place. >
  
  Guess she will be vacuuming in prison >
  
  The current prosecutor will decide somehow that an open and shut felony can’t/shouldn’t be prosecuted.
  A Republican could murder a corporate Democrat prosecutors first born child and dog and I wouldn’t trust them to bring charges.  
  Nearly all are spineless cowards from Garland on down who’s sole motivation is to advance their political career and don’t want to touch anything political with a 10 foot pole. >
  
  At this point I just want these people in positions of power to actually face consequences for something regular folks would see jail time for in the blink of an eye. >
  
  It's not possible for these droolers to go to far.  They will not stop until the courts weigh in and put them in a dark corner cell.  It's far past time for this to start happening. >
  
  We all know because she's a republican nothing will happen we've seen time and time again Republicans committed voter fraud over the last two years and they get slaps on the wrist. >
  
  She's just upset she sucked Cheetos dick and ended up getting nothing for it. >
  
  I wouldn’t say nothing. I expect the aftertaste would linger for some time. >
  
  Lordy Lordy I hope she gets charged for this. And the bar reconsiders letting her lawyer practice law, because the advice he's giving to Lake is criminal. >
  
  Sore losering an election so bad that you can no longer vote because you're now a felon. >
  
  Until I see one damn politician behind bars for criminal activity in public, I am not holding my breath. The headlines don’t interest me anymore. >
  
  Hopefully she’ll get doxxed as well, the miserable fucker that she is. >
  
  As the gqp would say (repeatedly) LOCK HER UP >
  
  Kari Lake is a coward and a fraud.  Common themes for anyone endorsed by Trump >
  
  “Unemployed Arizona woman commits felony on Twitter.” >
  
  These liars are trying to make Americans doubt the integrity of their electoral system. Who are the Americans falling for this? In the main, Republicans. Why is that? >
  
  lock her up, right?
  right? >
  
  I only want to see the arrest.
  Justice DELAYED is Justice DENIED 
  Two tier system >
  
  And let me fill you in on what will happen as a result of her illegal activities:
  Absolutely. Fucking. Nothing.
  Welcome to Trump's America. >
  
  Stupidest fucking timeline >
  
  Not at all.
  There have to be idiots in even the most brilliant timeline. How else would you know where you were? >
  
  I like this >
  
  Lol, as if laws on paper will be applied to a republican.  Next you're gonna tell me being innocent will protect you from being murdered by police. >
  
  But, as per usual in our horribly broken "democracy", the rule of law means nothing. She will pay no price- not jail time, not community service, not even a $1 token fine. >
  
  This just happened. It's a bit premature to be breaking out the gloom and doom predictions. >
  
  Thwre is a whole geoup of people who just say this stuff all day. Seems a but fishy, TBH. Apathy ruins a movement faster than opposition. >
  
  What gets me is how the apathetic always seem to spend an incredible amount time and effort being apathetic. >
  
  It's probably because it's extremely easy to get into that head space with the type of news we've been receiving for...a long time. Covid, police murdering civilians,  no accountability for the wealthy, inflation, January 6th, the war in Ukraine, the list goes on. It's easy to lose concern when you've abandoned hope for a positive outcome in any regard.  That's not to say that it helps anyone, but I can understand where they're coming from. >
  
  I can absolutely understand getting frustrated. But I can't understand giving up hope, much less the fight, while the process is still moving forward. 
  But more than that, I can't tolerate trying to get others to lose hope or give up the fight. One of the few natural rights we actually have is the right to fight for what we believe in and what's right. That's one of the few things in this life that no one can ever take away from you. As long as you still have breath, you can fight. Seeing people voluntarily forgo that right, it just seems like one of the biggest sins someone can commit. >
  
  I understand that and totally agree, but I wonder if it isn't intended with the 24 hour news cycle to create apathy/apathetic people. It's easier to control people who are in despair. It's easy to succumb to. >
  
  Yup. It's also something adversaries like Russia love to see as it undermines people's belief, and therefore their support, in the system. And that's why will continue to fight it every time I see it. >
  
  Wow this loser is still rambling on about this? Totally forgot about this LOSER. >
  
  Yeah, right, but politicians is above the laws nowadays so no harm will come to her. >
  
  Add it to the pile of Republican bullshit that they likely won't be held accountable for. >
  
  Can we, as a country, start enforcing laws on any person that clearly breaks them? >
  
  A felony that “could carry jail time.” I hope it does. >
  
  To everyone saying she'll face no consequences and this won't go anywhere:
  The Secretary of State for Arizona has literally referred this to the attorney general. The steps are being taken. The system isn't fast. Cool your jets guys. >
  
  I don’t have faith that she will be punished. Look how many GOP affiliated people have broken laws and nothing has happened yet. >
  
  They won't get anything from a criminal courts. But ones that basically got doxx should file for lots of money and idk maybe this is a  violation of your voting rights? >
  
  Let’s see some indictments from these chicken prosecutors. >
  
  Wow another republican breaking the law out in the open? I’m sure she’ll face charges just like the rest of them right? >
  
  Arrest her convict her and lock her up >
  
  Article doesn’t say exactly what she thinks the problem is, but likely it’s signatures that don’t match in appearance.  Repubs have been wanting for years to use this as a way to block votes, but won’t openly say so, only in glancing tweets and posts just like this that hint these are fake votes without openly saying so.  I guess they realize that this logic is deeply flawed enough that it wouldn’t stick, so all they do is dog-whistle about it.  
  So, why won’t they openly say it?  Are they saying that differences in signatures could only be fraud?  Or … not?  Just say it. >
  
  This is what happens when there is no consequences for elected traitors >
  
  And nothing will happen to her. We don’t hold anyone accountable anymore unless they’re poor.