Probably intentionally present totally absurd argument and lose so the case can be pointed at as "proof of no fraud". About like the NRA "protecting the 2A" by engaging in as many court cases as they can and trying to lose them.
Probably intentionally present totally absurd argument and lose so the case can be pointed at as "proof of no fraud". About like the NRA "protecting the 2A" by engaging in as many court cases as they can and trying to lose them.
(post is archived)