What has that to do with the question in view, or the incident addressed?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To show that statements need to be taken in context.
Ted Cruz hits his wife is a fact. Sounds pretty bad. Until it’s followed with the fact that he elbowed his wife accidentally. Most rational people would agree that it would not be fair to state that Ted Cruz hits his wife without stating the other fact that he hit her accidentally. If Ted Cruz is going to throw out verbal bombs at Trump then he needs to state ALL of the facts behind Trumps comments. Given everything we have witnessed over the last four years, on election night, and then in the weeks following the election, Trump has plenty of cause to make the statements he did.
For Cruz to attempt to make it seem like Trump is nuts for making the statements he made with zero cause is just grossly unfair and points to a political weasel reading tea leaves and instead of his wife, this time elbowing Trump.
That's not what I "heard" when I listened to him in the interview that was under scrutiny, not what I saw when I read and reread the verbatim text of exactly what he said.
My impression is that Cruz very much wanted Trump to win the election, that he had watched the process of exposing the false vote counts, and explained the fact that Trump's team had so badly mismanaged the presentation of evidence in the courts that the various judges up to and including the Supreme Court could not even permit themselves to review the data, and had to let the testimony of the election officials in the critical states prevail.
Brlieve me, I wanted Trump to win the election, but leading up to it I read "rigged" in Kamala Harris's smirk of utter confidence when she appeared publicly. I put what money I could on Donald and Mike, not just my mouth. I simply could not believe that anyone in his right mind would ever consider Joe Biden for dogcatcher, let alone the Presidency. I firmly believe that the balloting was rigged and the election so skewed that it had to be an outright dishonestly conducted process that awarded Biden such an unbelievable surplus of votes from an irresponsive public.
Nevertheless, overall, Trump's team did not submit court-acceptable documentation--apart from the content--to PROVE that unlawful activity of a significant amount went on, despite all the public wailing. You have to know how the legal system works, meet the process requirements, and follow the format before the court can review the substance. The object is to avoid a judge's decision being itself reviewed and found lacking, which no judge want to happen. Either the Trump team did not know how to do this, or they did not want to follow instructions. Giulani was inexperienced and inept, should never have been allowed near the litigation, or at least should have been replaced early on, to get the material (substantial part) in proper shape (pro forma) and submitted to the correct court branch (point of access) to even get the materia accepted, let alone reviewed.
That's what I understand, and it has nothing to do with Cruz' character or likeability.
That's all Cruz was saying, the truth. He did not say that fraud did not exist, nor did he say that the proof was not there, nor that the dishonesty could not be proven. What he did say was that it wasn't, according to the standards and process of the law that we live under. You can't honorably hold saying it against him.