Im 100% happy to have the SCOTUS rule this one in favor of Rudy and the team but i have one honest question; why did he state in the court that this is not a case against fraud? The judge seemed to dismiss the case because rudy said they were not contesting fraud only the fact that observers were denied the ability to observe(illegal and true). The fact is that the ballots were fraudulent, thats why they denied the obdervation of them?? Isnt that fraud? Why did he say no fraud? Then have a hearing that displayed a billion examples of actual fraud...
I don’t think they had all these affidavits and statistics available yet when they filed. Could be wrong. The PA court case seems to centered around the basic idea that observations were not permitted therefore the ballots coming in should be disqualified.
Not sure if they are also arguing that the rule changes are unconstitutional
Im 100% happy to have the SCOTUS rule this one in favor of Rudy and the team but i have one honest question; why did he state in the court that this is not a case against fraud? The judge seemed to dismiss the case because rudy said they were not contesting fraud only the fact that observers were denied the ability to observe(illegal and true). The fact is that the ballots were fraudulent, thats why they denied the obdervation of them?? Isnt that fraud? Why did he say no fraud? Then have a hearing that displayed a billion examples of actual fraud...
Am i missing something?
You're not missing anything, that was completely illegitimate, but what recourse is there against a judge?
I don’t think they had all these affidavits and statistics available yet when they filed. Could be wrong. The PA court case seems to centered around the basic idea that observations were not permitted therefore the ballots coming in should be disqualified.
Not sure if they are also arguing that the rule changes are unconstitutional