If Rudy said "They committed fraud and pulled suitcases of illegal votes out in suitcases" he'd have to prove that those votes were illegal, and not just "stored there for convenience."
If instead, Rudy says "They lied, sent everyone home early, and continued processing votes without observers present," even if those votes were legal they'd be invalid.
Because they broke the law and didn't have observers present.
That's all you have to prove, and not that they did it in order to commit fraud.
The second scenario can be concretely proven in a court of law, whereas "This is a fraud case" can not.
Fraud is a legal definition, that has its own specific set of evidentiary requirements. That's why the lefty judges keep trying to shoehorn Rudy's cases as "Fraud," because they're harder to prove.
What Rudy's cases are doing, is going after breaking election laws. Yes, they are doing it in order to commit election fraud, but you have a higher standard to prove if you say 'They committed fraud.'
What Rudy's doing is saying "They broke Laws X, Y, and Z" which is easier to prove.
Because the contested states have people in leadership positions that are compromised. Governor kemp and sos faggotsberger have direct monetary ties to companies owned by the CCP.
People need to remember that judges are elected. Imo, the states should not be allowed to judge on these issues, because they have a conflict of interest. That's why I was excited that scotus would potentially hear this.
If the state courts keep rejecting the hearings, what else can you do but REVOLT?
They are claiming it in their lawsuits, but none of the courts are allowing them to present evidence, and we keep getting punted up the chain.
ask them if they read the court case themselves or did they just get the cliff notes of the cliff notes from the 'news'.
As an example: GA Suitcase Video
If Rudy said "They committed fraud and pulled suitcases of illegal votes out in suitcases" he'd have to prove that those votes were illegal, and not just "stored there for convenience."
If instead, Rudy says "They lied, sent everyone home early, and continued processing votes without observers present," even if those votes were legal they'd be invalid.
Because they broke the law and didn't have observers present.
That's all you have to prove, and not that they did it in order to commit fraud.
The second scenario can be concretely proven in a court of law, whereas "This is a fraud case" can not.
Fraud is a legal definition, that has its own specific set of evidentiary requirements. That's why the lefty judges keep trying to shoehorn Rudy's cases as "Fraud," because they're harder to prove.
What Rudy's cases are doing, is going after breaking election laws. Yes, they are doing it in order to commit election fraud, but you have a higher standard to prove if you say 'They committed fraud.'
What Rudy's doing is saying "They broke Laws X, Y, and Z" which is easier to prove.
Because the contested states have people in leadership positions that are compromised. Governor kemp and sos faggotsberger have direct monetary ties to companies owned by the CCP.
People need to remember that judges are elected. Imo, the states should not be allowed to judge on these issues, because they have a conflict of interest. That's why I was excited that scotus would potentially hear this.
If the state courts keep rejecting the hearings, what else can you do but REVOLT?