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...
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?