The Arizona case was denied essentially because the affidavits were declared hear-say, because the testimony wasn't provided during court. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't make sense to me.

First, it took weeks to document their testimony - it would likely take further weeks to basically re-do their testimony in court / depositions.

Second, if it was so important that their testimony be sworn in to his court, why dismiss the case entirely, instead of just allowing the plaintiff to bring the witnesses to the stand?

It's pretty easy to dismiss a case as "having no evidence" when you ignore the 100's of affidavits as hear-say. Sure, it's not sworn testimony in court, but to automatically assume every one of them is lying, is a bit of a stretch.

Another rationale that has been used to dismiss cases is that evidence that the law was broken is not evidence that fraud that took place.

It's pretty much beyond dispute at this point that in several states, credentialed Republican poll observers were not allowed to do their job in a meaningful way - contrary to state law. (referring to MI/PA)

When literally hundreds of thousands of ballots are being counted without any oversight, those ballots should be thrown out. Not because its proof that fraud happened, but it is proof that the controls to prevent fraud were not in place (that were legally required to be in place).

"No evidence of widespread fraud", is true. But what is also true, is that there are mountains of evidence of election laws that were ignored/broken, that in a fair election, would result in those ballots being thrown out.