I totally agree. But if it’s not enough to overturn the vote, it falls far sort of massive. So why use the word? The ballots that are fraudulent need to be investigated. But so many of the claimed fraudulent ballots have been found to be legitimate. I’m not saying it was 100% squeeky clean. It never will be. But to claim massive and you have a handful at best is just as dishonest and disenfranchising.
“But to claim massive and you have a handful at best is just as dishonest and disenfranchising.”
For the effort that Rudy’s group is doing, you’re right. For the Dominion stuff, some expert said that for Biden’s numbers to have ended as they did, there’s a “one in many quadrillion chance” that could have happened. That would be “massive”.
Of course, everyone’s an expert...
They are arguing that many of the mail-in ballots were cast against the law as passed by the legislature. They are arguing that late-received ballots are unconstitutional, that ballots with no signature match are unconstitutional, and that ballots with no clear postmark are unconstitutional.
They are further arguing that these lax restrictions on mail-in ballots violates equal protection because in-person voters were subjected to further signature validations that the mail-in voters were not.
The question is whether this set of ballots are enough to overturn the election.
-PJ