Ruthles,
That is the opposite of what Cruz said. The article is fake news.
Cruz is consistently setting up a logical/legal argument that there has been no Due Process on the valid claims of election fraud. He is calling for Due Process, and we might get Due Process in the Impeachment hearings.
Here are Ted Cruz's actual words that are being misrepresented:
"What I've said is voter fraud is real, and we need to examine the evidence and look at the actual facts, and in particular, what is the evidence of how much voter fraud occurred, and did it occur in sufficient quantities and in sufficient states to alter the outcome of the election. That would have been the mandate of the election commission to assess. And you know one of the things I pointed out on the senate floor, Reuters polling shows 39 percent of Americans believe the election was rigged. That's a terrifying statistic, and I tried to make the case to Democrats. I said, look, you should want this commission because that's not good for our nation, it's not good for our country, to go forward with nearly half of the country believing that our democracy is fraudulent. We need to re-establish faith and trust in the democracy, and I think having a process to consider the evidence and the facts would have helped in that regard."Listen yourself: The relevant section of video starts at 16:06 HERE.
Here's what Ted said (as McGruff has pointed out once more in Post #176) about Trump's claims:
(1) ". . . he said repeatedly—and he said over and over again—he won by a landslide; there was massive fraud; it was all stolen everywhere."
(2) ". . . the campaign did not prove that in any court . . ."
What Cruz said was exactly true and not arguable. What Cruz did NOT say was that massive fraud did not occur. If you don't already realize it, any good lawyer will automatically, after much experience, choose his words very carefully, and that is what he did here.
Trump claimed massive fraud (which I believe to be true), but did not (not could not) prove it in court, with admissible evidence.
And that IS the fact. Cruz did NOT say that massive fraud did not exist. Period.
And what we gain from this by inference is that:
(1) Trump, without legal training, has not been called to account for what he says enough times to learn to choose his words very carefully; and
(2) Without that training has chosen such an inept inexperienced lawyer that had no sense to present his truly existing evidence in such a way as to make it lawfully acceptable to the judge who would review it.
Experienced lawyers commenting on this matter in this Free Republic forum have made that point. Giuliani was inept, and that is the price paid for poor judgment.