I still contend it was about fraud, especially if you read the documents they submitted to the court, yes.
Edit: also, we aren't even getting into the cases dismissed by Wisconsin, Nevada, Sydney Powell, etc.. You're going to have to write a thesis to dismiss all of that and keep the cognitive dissonance straight in your head at this rate.
What part of "The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud" are you having trouble understanding?
Edit: also, we aren't even getting into the cases dismissed by Wisconsin, Nevada, Sydney Powell, etc.. You're going to have to write a thesis to dismiss all of that and keep the cognitive dissonance straight in your head at this rate
Isn't one of those the one where Giuliani told a judge "This is not a fraud case"? Looks like you can't find a single example of a case where fraud evidence could have been presented but wasn't allowed by a judge LOL.
You're very good at selectively only answering the points you want...
That's what shills do.
Still on 0 case examples huh? LOL.
(post is archived)