[libertylover]

“disenfranchise almost seven million voters” and said he could not find any case in which a plaintiff “has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election.”

Does the judge actually think the campaign should submit complaints from 7 million people? The problem, judge, is that evidence shows that 7 million votes are fraud, but exactly whose vote was corrupted is impossible to know.

[DoodleDawg]

The problem, judge, is that evidence shows that 7 million votes are fraud, but exactly whose vote was corrupted is impossible to know.

So every single vote cast was fraudulent?

[lepton]

Does the judge actually think the campaign should submit complaints from 7 million people? The problem, judge, is that evidence shows that 7 million votes are fraud, but exactly whose vote was corrupted is impossible to know.

---

The judges logic seems to say that if the difference between votes for candidates was 1 vote, and there were shown to have been 3 fraudulent votes, that the initial tally must stand because it would mean throwing out the 7 million for the sake of the 3. That’s just silly reasoning.