by Jordan Conradson at thegatewaypundit.com
Abe Hamadeh filed a new response to Defendants in his Motion for New Trial in the ongoing lawsuit against the stolen 2022 Midterm Election.
Hamadeh’s race was decided by 280 votes after a “significant miscount” of hundreds of votes was discovered in rural Pinal County’s recount results.
The Gateway Pundit reported that Abe Hamadeh filed a ‘Motion for New Trial’ in the Mohave County Superior Court on Tuesday after the recount discrepancies were discovered.
This information was leaked to the media the day before a state judge announced Democrat Kris Mayes beat Republican Abe Hamadeh by 280 votes in the race for Arizona’s Attorney General.
Katie Hobbs knew about this discrepancy in Pinal County but withheld the information in court. The Gateway Pundit reported that Hobbs’ lawyers asked to delay the recount results from being presented before the lawsuit was dismissed. Abe said on Tuesday, “She had all the facts, she withheld this from the court, and she withheld this from me. So, we weren’t able to present any of this evidence.”
According to Abe Hamadeh and President Trump, this discrepancy must be investigated across the state, and all Counties must do a full recount. “It’s simple. If the judge allows us to inspect and count the ballots – we win,” said Abe.
President Trump recently called for Republicans in Arizona to demand a statewide hand recount, “and Abe will WIN,” he said.
Abe’s rebuttal to the Defendants’ responses outlines critical election errors, including ballot misreads, withholding of this information by Counties and the Secretary of State, and statistical improbabilities in the race called by 280 votes.
Read the full response below.
Key lines from the filing:
Exactly one day after Contestee Kris Mayes was sworn in as Arizona Attorney General,1 and two business days after Plaintiffs first received notice that Pinal County confirmed errors caused valid votes in the attorney general race to be misread as no votes (known as undervotes), Plaintiffs filed this Motion for a New Trial. Critically, then-Secretary Hobbs (a Defendant in this matter) knew about the misreads at the time of the trial, but chose not to disclose the widespread issues until after the pronouncement of the recount results. Yet despite Plaintiffs extreme diligence in quickly bringing this Motion for a New Trial, Defendants essentially argue “too little, too late.”
Sadly and unsurprisingly, Defendants wish away the guarantees of due process, ignore longstanding precedent, and cast aside material facts for fear of confirming what the evidence will undoubtedly prove: Abe Hamadeh, not Kris Mayes, received the most votes for attorney general when every qualified vote is accurately counted.
Arizona’s constitution demands that only the “person having the highest number of the votes cast for the office voted for shall be elected” (Ariz. Const. art. V, § 1(B)) and provides a statutory process to contest an election where “by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected… did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office[.]” A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(5). And due process demands that Plaintiffs be granted a new trial based on the newly discovered (and questionably withheld) evidence as well as the error of the court of not only limiting the inspection of ballots to a small sample (and excluding inspection of provisional ballots), but also failing to provide Plaintiffs time to meaningfully inspect the ballots in preparation for trial (not just hours before the trial).
Not only did Defendant Hobbs kept Plaintiffs in the dark, Plaintiffs requested this Court accelerate discovery once Maricopa County failed to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ request for production of records related to provisional ballots. Yet Defendants opposed the request and this Court denied it. See Emergency Hearing Transcript 47:11-12 (Dec. 22, 2023). Consequently, Maricopa did not provide Plaintiffs with the information related to provisional ballots until December 31, 2022. Maricopa’s delay in providing critical evidence prevented Plaintiffs from timely discovering significant, likely outcome determinative, irregularities with provisional ballots.
Plaintiffs simply ask this court to allow the parties to inspect all ballots that failed to record a vote in the attorney general race (known as an “undervote”) in all 15 counties to confirm that the machines properly and appropriately counted every vote in the attorney general race – and ensure that no voter is disenfranchised through failed election systems and processes.
Additionally, Plaintiffs request review of the provisional ballots in all 15 counties that officials rejected on the grounds that the voter was not “registered to vote” or “not eligible to vote” in the November General election despite having successfully voted in the 2018 General, 2020 General, and/or 2022 Primary.
Notwithstanding Defendants’ hyperbole and incendiary language, Defendants’ responses demonstrate one thing: fear. Fear that the election was not conducted properly,fear that the reported results were not accurate, and, at bottom, fear of finding out the truth of the proper election result. That’s why Defendants sought to limit ballot inspection, prevented good faith inquires predicated on unimpeachable data, and wish to silence anyone who dare use a statutorily prescribed process to test the accuracy of the vote count by demanding excessive sanctions and threaten bar charges. This Court should take this opportunity to fully litigate this election contest to help restore transparency and accountability in Arizona elections and lead the way to restoring voter confidence.
Questionably Withheld Evidence Will Prove That Abe Hamadeh Received The Most Votes in the Attorney General Race