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.
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.