They can’t do that without examining the proof.
It’d be nice for them to examine the evidence, for sure, but they have to be presented something that’s going to carry some weight. Burden of proof is on those making the claim of wrong-doing.
Many of the witnesses filed statements saying they saw things that they claimed “may be fraud,” or “might not be” proper procedure... etc. That’s speculation.
And when an “expert on military intelligence” files a declaration, he actually has to be an expert on military intelligence.
It is a common occurrence for a judge to rule evidence to be inadmissible. A good lawyer knows that. Heck, anyone who watches “Law and Order” knows that.
These particular lawyers screwed us.