> I did know that, thank you for blindly assuming I didn't.
It seems odd then that you're asking them to present evidence in court when that is what they've been trying to do and haven't been able to as yet.
> First off, the reason why so many of these lawsuits are dismissed for procedural mistakes is because they are taken by awful lawyers, since real election lawyers don't want to touch these with a 10 foot pole.
Their lawyers claim their families have been threatened. I would believe that it could be hard to retain effective counsel in that environment.
Mistakes are also somewhat more likely than usual given the time constraints.
> Secondly, again, while they claim fraud on social media and on TV, the lawyers actually don't claim fraud in court
They weren't claiming fraud in the Pennsylvania case, because they had such a strong argument that the state had violated their own constitution. They were claiming fraud in some of the other cases.
> as that's much harder to prove, and affidavits are just hearsay when it comes to proving fraud.
Hearsay means claiming you heard someone else say something. Affidavits can contain hearsay but that doesn't automatically mean that everything in an affidavit is hearsay.
Also, there are hearsay exceptions, like statements against the interest of the speaker. If someone is admitting to backdating ballots or telling others to do it, which I expect is illegal, it's not immediately obvious why that wouldn't qualify.
> You explained the two SC ones but still fail to explain how the other 50 or more failed, or why none of them have been able to present any real evidence. Why is it that they all have lack of standing?
Most of the others weren't actually filed by the campaign. Which is one reason they may lack standing.
> Because you can't overturn an entire election based on an affidavit of someone claiming they saw trucks full of ballots, with zero other evidence.
But that's the thing. If you believed them (it was more than one person claiming to see that), you could. Maybe you don't, without more, but that's why there should be a court case. Where you then do discovery and subpoena the others who were there to see what they have to say about it etc. They got shut down before they had a chance to do that.
> I'm honestly curious what YOU think the reason is. Is it just pure bad luck that all 50+ lawsuits just failed in the most miserable way? Is the court system broken?
My impression is that the courts don't want to be involved in the controversy and are willing to take any excuse to get the case out of their courtroom. Can you even imagine what would happen if they actually proved their case?
> In most of these cases, Trump's team is trying to use irregularity with a 1-2 ballots to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots, and that's just not how it works. That's why all those lawsuits are being dismissed without even being heard because even if they prove their point, they cannot overturn the election.
The argument there is that they have statistical evidence of fraud. Which is weak, because the election was so weird with coronavirus and mail-in ballots that you would practically expect statistical anomalies. But if the fraud the statistics say is there, is there, then you should be seeing duplicate ballots and the like. And so then they present evidence of duplicate ballots and the like, to bolster the case that the statistical evidence of fraud is actually fraud.
And there is also another issue with all of this. A lot of these cases are separately claiming that there were 10,000 ballots here, 4000 there, 6000 somewhere else. Well, they were dismissed, because none of those are enough to change the outcome... unless you add some of them together. Which is why it seems wrong to dismiss a case for not affecting enough ballots on its own, before you know the outcome for any of the others. But that seems to be what happened.
> If they have real solid evidence (and no, someone signing an affidavit is not it), then where is it? Why have we not seen any yet?
I don't know what they have. The media coverage of all of this has been nakedly partisan propaganda from both sides. I was kind of hoping they'd make it into court somewhere so I could actually see them present their case, and see the other side defend against it, instead of just having all these depositions and affidavits that only present one side of the story and which I don't actually have time to read because they're a zillion pages long.