So a liberal buddy of mine keeps saying that when Trump's lawyers are in front of a judge they don't claim fraud. He shared an article that did show a few cases where they said to the judge they weren't alleging fraud including Guilianni. Why is that?
Comments (13)
sorted by:
I’m not very up to date but I believe they’re relying more on the constitutional aspects for the courts. The unconstitutional changes made without the legislatures is a much easier (and quicker) argument to make. I don’t think that they’re giving up on proving fraud it’s just that with the fraud route you have to prove the fraud as well as prove that it was enough to change the outcome. The fraud route takes a lot more work. The constitutional argument should be open and shut.